Spaceman Spiff Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/18/america/18policy.php Hmmmm...Nahhhh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 serious question. does this seem like lip service to you just to get that extra vote and get in the white house? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 No, it's totally different. CIA doing as they please? Check NSA spying on Americans? Check Attacking sovereign Nations? Check Torture? Check Obama is amazing as a leader, all things a good and different. Bush is a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 does this seem like lip service to you just to get that extra vote and get in the white house? Pfffffffffftttt....no one would do such a thing. Would they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Bush got much wrong, the war on terror he got right. Makes sense that Obama would carry the torch now that he is privy to the real intelligence reports. And he gets to continue the Bush doctrine with a 60% approval rating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 No, it's totally different. CIA doing as they please? Check NSA spying on Americans? Check Attacking sovereign Nations? Check Torture? Check Obama is amazing as a leader, all things a good and different. Bush is a moron. Come on man. He is a pragmatist. He has adopted those positions after careful consideration...or OJT...whatever you want to call it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Pfffffffffftttt....no one would do such a thing.Would they? my Gosh that cologne you are wearing smells fantastic. It is like a cross between sarcasm and intelligence..hahaha I dont get why he wants to shut down Gitmo if he is still in favor of snatching up terrorists and holding them indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I dont get why he wants to shut down Gitmo if he is still in favor of snatching up terrorists and holding them indefinitely. To pacify the pacifists? I hear he's big on symbolism,and guestures;); Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Spiff Posted February 18, 2009 Author Share Posted February 18, 2009 my Gosh that cologne you are wearing smells fantastic. It is like a cross between sarcasm and intelligence..hahahaI dont get why he wants to shut down Gitmo if he is still in favor of snatching up terrorists and holding them indefinitely. Cause when you shut down Gitmo it'll make people think that you're really cracking down on the "problem" when you're just shifting it somewhere else. HEY LOOK OVER THERE NOTHING MORE TO SEE HERE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 my Gosh that cologne you are wearing smells fantastic. It is like a cross between sarcasm and intelligence..hahahaI dont get why he wants to shut down Gitmo if he is still in favor of snatching up terrorists and holding them indefinitely. Because Guantanamo Bay was bad PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 As far as I'm concerned Obama has made the changes that he promised and that I was looking for. The CIA and military is no longer allowed to torture people and Panetta said we will not be rendering suspects to third parties in the interest of having them tortured. Some of the other examples of Obama continuing Bush policy were never points of contention for me or other ES liberals. And I would agree with the state secrets defense. It should be the US Government, and not foreign accusers, who decide when classified US policies will be revealed. I can understand the Republican circle jerk here, you guys are dying to tell Obama supporters that we were hoodwinked. The fact is we were not. American use of waterboarding is over. So is extraordinary rendition as applied by the Bush administration (thinly veiled state sponsored torture). The liberal contention against military courts was not the simple fact that they were military courts, but the insane rules the Bush administration established when creating said courts-rules that were twice rejected by the Republican packed supreme court. On all three issues, Obama has kept his word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Having now read the entire article, I am reminded of when Kennedy campaigned on the "missile gap", which Nixon maintained didn't exist; this was based on top-secret U-2 photos which he could not divulge or acknowledge. Since he couldn't prove what he knew to the public, many people believed Kennedy and it helped him win the election. When JFK took office he saw said photos and had to change his stance. There was a missile gap, but the one Kennedy had scared people with - we had many more missiles than the Soviets, not the other way around. My point is that it's easy to look in from the outside and criticize when you don't have all the facts, due to so many things being kept secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMike619 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Because Guantanamo Bay was bad PR. thats what Im thinking. It was that shining beacon that he can point at when people come at him and say "hey, i closed gitmo!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I can understand the Republican circle jerk here, you guys are dying to tell Obama supporters that we were hoodwinked. The fact is we were not. So what is your take on Obama sending additional troops to Afghanistan? Seems an awful lot like a move Bush would have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 As far as I'm concerned Obama has made the changes that he promised and that I was looking for. The CIA and military is no longer allowed to torture people and Panetta said we will not be rendering suspects to third parties in the interest of having them tortured. Some of the other examples of Obama continuing Bush policy were never points of contention for me or other ES liberals. And I would agree with the state secrets defense. It should be the US Government, and not foreign accusers, who decide when classified US policies will be revealed. I can understand the Republican circle jerk here, you guys are dying to tell Obama supporters that we were hoodwinked. The fact is we were not. American use of waterboarding is over. So is extraordinary rendition as applied by the Bush administration (thinly veiled state sponsored torture). The liberal contention against military courts was not the simple fact that they were military courts, but the insane rules the Bush administration established when creating said courts-rules that were twice rejected by the Republican packed supreme court. On all three issues, Obama has kept his word. So in essence your whole beef with the way Bush ran the war was the treatment of prisoners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 So what is your take on Obama sending additional troops to Afghanistan? Seems an awful lot like a move Bush would have made. Then why didn't Bush make that move? Obama campaigned on focusing our military on Afghanistan. Seeing as how Afghanistan is home to AQ and the Taliban-you know, the guys who actually attacked us on 9/11, if the troop increase helps our chances of killing our attackers and our generals are asking for more help there, then I am all for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Then why didn't Bush make that move? Obama campaigned on focusing our military on Afghanistan. Seeing as how Afghanistan is home to AQ and the Taliban-you know, the guys who actually attacked us on 9/11, if the troop increase helps our chances of killing our attackers and our generals are asking for more help there, then I a all for it. Because Iraq had to be handled first, to provide stability to the region. Next is Afghanistan and then you have pushed the enemy into Pakistan and Iran, while gaining control of outside nations. It's a long road. We couldn't just start bombing randomly after 9/11, because it could have triggered other nations bombing randomly as well. Read the PNAC and be patient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 So in essence your whole beef with the way Bush ran the war was the treatment of prisoners. Nope. The majority of my beef has to do with getting 4200 Americans killed in an unnecessary war based on fallse pretences that had little or nothing to do with our attackers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Because Iraq had to be handled first, to provide stability to the region.Next is Afghanistan and then you have pushed the enemy into Pakistan and Iran, while gaining control of outside nations. It's a long road. We couldn't just start bombing randomly after 9/11, because it could have triggered other nations bombing randomly as well. Read the PNAC and be patient. Good god I can't believe you are quoting the imbeciles who were wrong about everything in the PNAC. These are the folks who thought the Iraq war would cost $50 billion and take 6 Months, tops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaxBuddy21 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Nope. The majority of my beef has to do with getting 4200 Americans killed in an unnecessary war based on fallse pretences that had little or nothing to do with our attackers. And this is a result of falling education standards in this country! Too many pot smoking hippies grew up thinking that "war is bad man" and that one lost american life means the war was unjustified. Yes, it is sad that american lives were lost but how many lives were saved in the process of stabilizing a nation run by a brutal dictator that harbors terrorist who have no other life goal than to kill themselves and take as many people as possible with them? The entire world should be outraged that these terrorist groups are allowed to exist and operate and that there are leaders that are killing their own people but no they would rather "talk it out" then step in and take action. Just because we may think war and killing is bad, it doesnt stop the other side from doing it anyway unless someone steps in and makes them stop. We live in a country where kids get a time out for acting up instead of getting spanked like they should. If my parents gave me a time out, I would have laughed in their faces. I acted right because I knew the consequences if I didnt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Good god I can't believe you are quoting the imbeciles who were wrong about everything in the PNAC. These are the folks who thought the Iraq war would cost $50 billion and take 6 Months, tops. Do you really believe they honestly thought that war was only going to cost $50 billion? Iraq doesn't produce enough oil to mobilize our war machines, do you think they didn't know that? Do you think $800 billion is what the stimulus will cost? Do you think they would get support if they told the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 And this is a result of falling education standards in this country! Too many pot smoking hippies grew up thinking that "war is bad man" and that one lost american life means the war was unjustified. Yes, it is sad that american lives were lost but how many lives were saved in the process of stabilizing a nation run by a brutal dictator that harbors terrorist who have no other life goal than to kill themselves and take as many people as possible with them? The entire world should be outraged that these terrorist groups are allowed to exist and operate and that there are leaders that are killing their own people but no they would rather "talk it out" then step in and take action. Just because we may think war and killing is bad, it doesnt stop the other side from doing it anyway unless someone steps in and makes them stop. We live in a country where kids get a time out for acting up instead of getting spanked like they should. If my parents gave me a time out, I would have laughed in their faces. I acted right because I knew the consequences if I didnt! ...speaking of uneducated, more Iraqis died as a result of our invasion than would have died otherwise. Sorry to burst your uneducated Republican bubble, Cletus. From MIT: Findings The risk of death was estimated to be 2·5-fold (95% CI 1·6–4·2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/reports/lancet04.pdf Johns Hopkins: Death rates were 5.5/1,000/year pre-invasion, and overall, 13.2/1,000/year for the 40 months post-invasion.We estimate that through July 2006, there have been 654,965 “excess deaths”—fatalities above the pre-invasion death rate— in Iraq as a consequence of the war. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 were due to violent causes. Non-violent deaths rose above the pre-invasion level only in 2006. Since March 2003, an additional 2.5% of Iraq’s population have died above what would have occurred without conflict. http://www.jhsph.edu/refugee/publications_tools/iraq/Human_Cost_of_WarFORMATTED.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Then why didn't Bush make that move? Obama campaigned on focusing our military on Afghanistan. Seeing as how Afghanistan is home to AQ and the Taliban-you know, the guys who actually attacked us on 9/11, if the troop increase helps our chances of killing our attackers and our generals are asking for more help there, then I am all for it. I'm guessing that Bush didn't want to rock the boat too much the last year of his presidency. I have no problem with another troop surge. More soldiers on the ground where it matters makes victory more likely. Victory is the goal, after all. All I remember Obama saying in his campaign was that we needed to get out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 I'm guessing that Bush didn't want to rock the boat too much the last year of his presidency. I have no problem with another troop surge. More soldiers on the ground where it matters makes victory more likely. Victory is the goal, after all. All I remember Obama saying in his campaign was that we needed to get out. You don't remember well because he said get out of Iraq, and send more troops to Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted February 18, 2009 Share Posted February 18, 2009 Go to Afghanistan to get Bin Laden....:rotflmao::thumbsup:. You guys are good. Or are we back in 2002??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.