Obama's war on terror = Bush's?

[twa]

I didnt realize we were at war with Yemen now.

Not Yemen...the terrorists(which may or not be Yemenis)

We are conducting lower profile war in a number of spots

Soon to be expanded imo

[SnyderShrugged]

Not Yemen...the terrorists(which may or not be Yemenis)

We are conducting lower profile war in a number of spots

Soon to be expanded imo

We should just declare every country that has a muslim living in it as enemy, that way the military brass can skip all that paperwork.

[twa]

We should just declare every country that has a muslim living in it as enemy, that way the military brass can skip all that paperwork.

But we are fighting at the request of Muslim leaders.

The Sauds are a bit nervous and calling in help from all over

[SnyderShrugged]

But we are fighting at the request of Muslim leaders.

The Sauds are a bit nervous and calling in help from all over

right, so lets just skip the salad and move right to the meat and potatoes by declaring all of them enemy and get to work attacking.

why offer pretense at this point?

[Monte51Coleman]

To pacify the pacifists?

I hear he's big on symbolism,and guestures;);

Hey, at least he can spell them.

And pronounce them.

[twa]

Not sure where you get that idea SS

[Bang]

I didnt realize we were at war with Yemen now.

Well, we're not technically at war with any state. but if that state is harboring who we are at war with, we shouldn't allow it to stand in the way of moving to the battlefield.

So long as they are allowed safe havens. no one is safe. It's not as if they have only bombed and killed western targets, of which they have in plenty of countries. They bomb and kill way many more muslims than anyone else. It is in every nation's best interest that these fanatics be eradicated.

If the Yemenese (Yemish ) government does not cooperate and offers safe haven to the enemy, then they in turn become an enemy as well.

This is war, the ultimate stomp on the toes. We should not ****foot around, so to speak. This isn't a police action, or some other sort of "legally sanctioned" operation. War that is not total war is a complete waste of time and life.

Over the years we've all heard the comparisons to Vietnam and how we never learned, etc etc etc. Well, one lesson of Vietnam that should be painfully clear is that if we allow the enemy to hide behind political lines on a map we can never hope to win. Obviously we'd want to try to minimize damage to innocents, because I'd bet Al Qaeda did not get official permission from the Yemenese government to occupy their lands. They brought the battlefield to Yemen, not us.

~Bang

[Mad Mike]

Silly me. I thought it was America's war on terror. :doh:

[Mad Mike]

We should just declare every country that has a muslim living in it as enemy, that way the military brass can skip all that paperwork.

Do you have anything to say that does not involve sweeping generalizations with no contact to reality?

[Midnight Judges]

right, so lets just skip the salad and move right to the meat and potatoes by declaring all of them enemy and get to work attacking.

why offer pretense at this point?

This type of argument is flawed IMO.

You are an extremist but not in the traditional sense. You take every principle to the extreme and then see which one holds up best under unrealistic (extreme) circumstances. Would probably serve you better to take every principle and evaluate it under the circumstances for which it is intended.

[shuler74]

I support your war on terror....

[SnyderShrugged]

This type of argument is flawed IMO.

You are an extremist but not in the traditional sense. You take every principle to the extreme and then see which one holds up best under unrealistic (extreme) circumstances. Would probably serve you better to take every principle and evaluate it under the circumstances for which it is intended.

This is what a typical neo-con would say. I'm not surprised.

[SnyderShrugged]

Do you have anything to say that does not involve sweeping generalizations with no contact to reality?

...he says with a sweeping generalization.

[Mad Mike]

For those interested in reality:

Terrorism Havens: Yemen - Council on Foreign Relations

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9369/

Is Yemen a haven for terrorism?

Yes. Yemen, located at the southern tip of the Arabian Peninsula, is a poor Muslim country with a weak central government, armed tribal groups in outlying areas, and porous borders, which makes it fertile ground for terrorists. Its government has tried to help the United States after September 11, and the State Department calls Yemen “an important partner in the campaign against terrorism, providing assistance in the military, diplomatic, and financial arenas.” But experts say that terrorists live in Yemen, sometimes with government approval; Yemen-based corporations are thought to help fund Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network; and Yemenis affiliated with al-Qaeda have targeted U.S. interests in Yemen, including the October 2000 bombing of the navy destroyer U.S.S. Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden .

Which sorts of terrorists operate in Yemen?

According to the State Department, al-Qaeda’s operational structure inYemen has been “weakened and dispersed” since September 11. But Islamists affiliated with al-Qaeda still maintain a presence. Bin Laden’s group is thought to be behind the attack on the Cole, in which seventeen U.S. sailors died and thirty-nine were injured. Seventeen suspects—some thought to have connections to al-Qaeda—were arrested for the attack, ten of which escaped in 2003. Although al-Qaeda has not formally claimed responsibility for the attack, bin Laden praised those who “destroyed a destroyer that fearsome people fear” on a 2001 videotape.

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are recognized legal organizations in Yemen and Hamas maintains offices in the country. Neither group has engaged in any known terrorist activities in Yemen , but conduct fundraising efforts through mosques and other charitable organizations.

Al-Qaeda in Yemen - The Carnegie Endowment for Peace

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/events/?fa=eventDetail&id=1372

Second Phase of the War Against al-Qaeda

Johnsen identified the February 2006 prison break of 23 al-Qaeda suspects as the start of the second phase of the war against al-Qaeda in Yemen. One of these escapees, Nasir al-Wahayshi, a former secretary of Osama bin Laden, oversaw the rebuilding of al-Qaeda. It now has more recruits, publishes a bi-monthly journal to reach out to the local Yemeni population, and merged with the Saudi Arabian branch and formed al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

The momentum is now with al-Qaeda, Johnsen explained, which learned from its failures in the first phase. It launched more attacks within Yemen, and Saudi militants have fled to Yemen. While there is no concrete evidence yet that al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and Pakistan are using Yemen as a safe haven, there is a substantial risk that they may do so in the future.

And for those who want to let GITMO detainees go....

Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief - NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html

BEIRUT, Lebanon — The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

The militant, Said Ali al-Shihri, is suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing of the United States Embassy in Yemen’s capital, Sana, in September. He was released to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and passed through a Saudi rehabilitation program for former jihadists before resurfacing with Al Qaeda in Yemen.

His status was announced in an Internet statement by the militant group and was confirmed by an American counterterrorism official.

“They’re one and the same guy,” said the official, who insisted on anonymity because he was discussing an intelligence analysis. “He returned to Saudi Arabia in 2007, but his movements to Yemen remain unclear.”

Yeah, let's just call people "neocons". That's much better than making an informed statement about the issues.

[Mad Mike]

...he says with a sweeping generalization.

Another childish response. Classic.

[SnyderShrugged]

Another childish response. Classic.

It's childish to point out your sweeping generalization about my sweeping generalizations?

I see.

I see you are heading back to your tried and true tactic of anger, but I wont engage on that because I know how very sensitive you are about it.

I'm sure we both understand that we have differing views on the subject, the difference between us is that I dont automatically go after each and every one of your posts.

[SnyderShrugged]

For those interested in reality:

Terrorism Havens: Yemen - Council on Foreign Relations

Yeah, let's just call people "neocons". That's much better than making an informed statement about the issues.

Yes, the council on foreign relations is extremely neo-con. I'm glad you mentioned them.

[Larry]

Silly me. I thought it was America's war on terror. :doh:

Do you have anything to say that does not involve sweeping generalizations with no contact to reality?

[Larry]

Freed by the U.S., Saudi Becomes a Qaeda Chief - NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/world/middleeast/23yemen.html

So, was he an al Qaeda chief when we released him?

[Mad Mike]

It's childish to point out your sweeping generalization about my sweeping generalizations?

I see.

I see you are heading back to your tried and true tactic of anger, but I wont engage on that because I know how very sensitive you are about it.

I'm sure we both understand that we have differing views on the subject, the difference between us is that I dont automatically go after each and every one of your posts.

Nothing was generalized about my comment. It was directed specifically at you and what you said. It doesn't surprise me that you do not understand the English language well enough to understand that though, because you have shown no ability to understand anything other than what your ideology tells you.

And your pathetic attempt to continuously paint me as an angry person is as transparent as your ridiculous attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with you on this subject as a "neocon".

Not once have you talked about or examined the issues and conditions in Yemin in this thread. All you have done is call people names. For reference, I give you post #87.

[Mad Mike]

Originally Posted by Mad Mike View Post

Silly me. I thought it was America's war on terror.

Originally Posted by Mad Mike View Post

Do you have anything to say that does not involve sweeping generalizations with no contact to reality?

And your point is?

My first comment was directed at the thread title. It applies directly and the point should be perfectly clear.

The second comment you quoted was directed to the comment that "We should just declare every country that has a muslim living in it as enemy, that way the military brass can skip all that paperwork." It also applies directly and in context, is absolutely true.

So I ask again. Your point is?....

[SnyderShrugged]

Nothing was generalized about my comment. It was directed specifically at you and what you said. It doesn't surprise me that you do not understand the English language well enough to understand that though, because you have shown no ability to understand anything other than what your ideology tells you.

And your pathetic attempt to continuously paint me as an angry person is as transparent as your ridiculous attempts to paint anyone who disagrees with you on this subject as a "neocon".

Not once have you talked about or examined the issues and conditions in Yemin in this thread. All you have done is call people names. For reference, I give you post #87.

And I give you post #84,

where you responded to a post that wasnt directed to you, in an aggressive and dare I say "angry" manner.

"Do you have anything to say that does not involve sweeping generalizations with no contact to reality?"

and I understand the english language quite well, thank you.

gen·er·al·i·za·tion [ jènnərəli záysh'n ] (plural gen·er·al·i·za·tions)

noun

Definition:

1. sweeping statement: a statement presented as a general truth but based on limited or incomplete evidence

so we can see here, that you did in fact generalize about me making sweeping generalizations.

Now, as to the discussion about Yemen. I dont believe I was discussing the general conditions there with anyone at all here. I simply pointed out to MJ that his position is neo-con (just like yours) in response to his constant attempts at lableing me. If you had not been so lazy and read the thread, you would have understod that my calling him a neo-con was for a reason. It's obvious that it went over your head.

It is a neo-con position to attack sovereign nations who have not attacked us. Thats not up for debate.

Now if you would rather discuss the merits or lack thereof of war with Yemen, I'll be sure to engage with you on that topic. I think it could be an interesting conversation overall. You are very knowledgeable on the intricacies in the middle east from the pro-war/nation building perspective and I think your insights regarding that are actually quite valuable to the overall conversation.

But thats really a topic for a different thread. This one is about how similar the pro war Bush and the pro-war Obama are.

[Mad Mike]

Yes, the council on foreign relations is extremely neo-con. I'm glad you mentioned them.

Yet another attack on the source rather than the content.

Let's look at one of their "neocon" articles shall we?

The Iraq War in Perspective

Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations

Published - May 4, 2009 Huffington Post

http://www.cfr.org/publication/19292/iraq_war_in_perspective.html

The second and still ongoing Iraq war was a war of choice, not necessity. To paraphrase what a French statesman of the eighteenth century said about an ill-advised and unwarranted execution, it was also a blunder. There were other viable policy options available to the United States to meet the challenges posed by Saddam Hussein. In particular, the sanctions regime could have been reformed to allow Iraq more leeway in what it could import but also to limit the resources coming under the regime's direct control. Inspections could have been designed to provide considerable if not total confidence that Iraq was not developing weapons of mass destruction. Odds are that Saddam Hussein would have remained in power, but his ability to threaten his neighbors and his own citizens would likely have been circumscribed. The United States could well have accomplished a change in regime behavior and a change in regime threat without regime change.

:doh:

[twa]

It is a neo-con position to attack sovereign nations who have not attacked us. Thats not up for debate.

Now if you would rather discuss the merits or lack thereof of war with Yemen, I'll be sure to engage with you on that topic. I think it could be an interesting conversation overall. You are very knowledgeable on the intricacies in the middle east from the pro-war/nation building perspective and I think your insights regarding that are actually quite valuable to the overall conversation.

But thats really a topic for a different thread. This one is about how similar the pro war Bush and the pro-war Obama are.

Was W's that much different than Bill's if you take into account the events?

You got a uphill fight to change our foreign policies SS;)

[SnyderShrugged]

Yet another attack on the source rather than the content.

Let's look at one of their "neocon" articles shall we?

The Iraq War in Perspective

Author: Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations

Published - May 4, 2009 Huffington Post

http://www.cfr.org/publication/19292/iraq_war_in_perspective.html

:doh:

Not sure what your point is Mike, You dont believe that there are liberal neo-cons? Our president is one, and there are many members of the CFR that espouse liberal beliefs. You seem to try and box everything in from the left vs right paradigm and i think you are missing the fact that whether left or right or dem or GOP, there are foreign policy positions that are shared and that are dangerous (IMHO, I understand that you disagree)

You will have a much more productive debate/discussion with me when you lose the anger (ie::doh:)