Obama's war on terror = Bush's?

[SnyderShrugged]

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;)

Oh you you dont need to tell me how rough a fight that will be! I think its near impossible to be honest, but while daunting, I think its worth it to point out the detrimental flaws in pursuing the errors of our past and present.

On Clinton vs Bush foreign policy, I dont think they are too far off because they both were based on the CFR perspective when looked at honestly. That said, I think Clintons was less harmful only in that he didnt do much "nation building", but that would be the main difference to me.

[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]

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:)

A) You accusing me of putting everything into an ideological box is just hilarious.

Yeah, Maybe I should take up your tactic of knowing nothing about the subject, making wild statements with no basis in reality, and trying to discredit people.

C) On what planet is :doh: a symbol for anger?

I dedicate this poem to you:

ON SEEING ONE ON A LADY'S BONNET AT CHURCH

Ha! whare ye gaun, ye crowlin ferlie!

Your impudence protects you sairly:

I canna say but ye strunt rarely

Owre gauze and lace;

Tho' faith, I fear ye dine but sparely

On sic a place.

Ye ugly, creepin, blastit wonner,

Detested, shunned by saunt an' sinner,

How daur ye set your fit upon her,

Sae fine a lady!

Gae somewhere else and seek your dinner,

On some poor body.

Swith, in some beggar's haffet squattle;

There ye may creep, and sprawl, and sprattle

Wi' ither kindred, jumpin cattle,

In shoals and nations;

Whare horn or bane ne'er daur unsettle

Your thick plantations.

Now haud ye there, ye're out o' sight,

Below the fatt'rels, snug an' tight;

Na faith ye yet! ye'll no be right

Till ye've got on it,

The vera tapmost, towering height

O' Miss's bonnet.

My sooth! right bauld ye set your nose out,

As plump an' grey as onie grozet:

O for some rank, mercurial rozet,

Or fell, red smeddum,

I'd gie ye sic a hearty dose o't,

Wad dress your droddum!

I wad na been surprised to spy

You on an auld wife's flainen toy;

Or aiblins some bit duddie boy,

On's wyliecoat;

But Miss's fine Lunardi!—fie!

How daur ye do't?

O Jenny, dinna toss your head,

An' set your beauties a' abread!

Ye little ken what cursed speed

The blastie's makin!

Thae winks and finger-ends, I dread,

Are notice takin!

O, wad some Power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as others see us!

It wad frae monie a blunder free us

An' foolish notion:

What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,

And ev'n Devotion!

- Robert Burns

[Mad Mike]

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

Again. What is your point? Do you have one other than just playing contrarian?

I'll tell you what my point is. Many people (not necessarily those in this discussion) want us to release more detainees in order to close GITMO faster. My point is that the remaining detainees are thought to be more dangerous and less capable of rehabilitation than this guy.

[SnyderShrugged]

A) You accusing me of putting everything into an ideological box is just hilarious.

Yeah, Maybe I should take up your tactic of knowing nothing about the subject, making wild statements with no basis in reality, and trying to discredit people.

C) On what planet is :doh: a symbol for anger?

I dedicate this poem to you:

arent you cute with your poems!!:hysterical:

[Madison Redskin]

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

The CFR is "extremely neo-con?" You either haven't read many articles in Foreign Affairs or you must think that everyone (except libertarians, of course) are neo-cons.

[luckydevil]

Midnight Judges might be the most partisan Obama supporter I have come across. It's cute how he pretends that there isn't any liberal dissent towards Obama and only views the dissent as some sort of republican right-wing conspiracy.

Oh and he really needs to google Bagram. It is far worse than Guantanamo

[wilsonian]

In my estimation, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to win the war in Afghanistan. I'm not even sure how we will determine what "victory" is.

History has shown that Afghanistan is a place where empires go to die. We're doing exactly what Osama bin Laden wants us to do, which is to fight the war on his turf until we bankrupt ourselves. So far, it seems his plan is working.

[Midnight Judges]

Midnight Judges might be the most partisan Obama supporter I have come across. It's cute how he pretends that there isn't any liberal dissent towards Obama and only views the dissent as some sort of republican right-wing conspiracy.

Oh and he really needs to google Bagram. It is far worse than Guantanamo

It's true, I am an Obama supporter. Proud of it.

This is thread is nearly 10 Months old. Back when I made some of these arguments, there really wasn't much liberal opposition to Obama. Certainly nothing like there is now relative to the GWOT.

And I don't think it is a conspracy that Republicans oppose Obama at every turn. That is simply how politcal parties work.

As for Bagram, I would agree. The detainees there should be afforded the same rights as the ones at Guantanamo. I don't see how the Obama administration can split that hair without looking hypocritical. Still, I think closing Quantanamo is a good idea.

[Midnight Judges]

In my estimation, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to win the war in Afghanistan. I'm not even sure how we will determine what "victory" is.

History has shown that Afghanistan is a place where empires go to die. We're doing exactly what Osama bin Laden wants us to do, which is to fight the war on his turf until we bankrupt ourselves. So far, it seems his plan is working.

If we bankrupt ourselves (won't happen) it won't be because of the war in Afghanistan.

[wilsonian]

If we bankrupt ourselves (won't happen) it won't be because of the war in Afghanistan.

Interesting. Why don't you think that will happen? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Midnight Judges]

Interesting. Why don't you think that will happen? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

The war in Afghanistan simply doesn't cost that much (relatively of course). It is set to cost $65 billion in 2010. That includes the surge. The total federal budget is $3.6 trillion. So we're talking 1.8% of the budget here.

As for going bankrupt, we've been in the hole much deeper than this before in terms of debt to GDP ratio. Namely, during WWII, which everyone agrees stimulated the economy.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

[Mad Mike]

History has shown that Afghanistan is a place where empires go to die. We're doing exactly what Osama bin Laden wants us to do, which is to fight the war on his turf until we bankrupt ourselves. So far, it seems his plan is working.

There is no equivalent in history for what is happening in Afghanistan now.

We (with an international coalition) are fighting the Taliban, NOT the government and NOT people of Afghanistan. In this case it is the Taliban who are the outsiders. Don't believe me? Read the words of a great hero of Afghanistan:

A Message to the People of the United States of America - Ahmad Shah Massoud, 1998

http://www.afghan-web.com/documents/let-masood.html

Let me correct a few fallacies that are propagated by Taliban backers and their lobbies around the world. This situation over the short and long-run, even in case of total control by the Taliban, will not be to anyone�s interest. It will not result in stability, peace and prosperity in the region. The people of Afghanistan will not accept such a repressive regime. Regional countries will never feel secure and safe. Resistance will not end in Afghanistan, but will take on a new national dimension, encompassing all Afghan ethnic and social strata.

The goal is clear. Afghans want to regain their right to self-determination through a democratic or traditional mechanism acceptable to our people. No one group, faction or individual has the right to dictate or impose its will by force or proxy on others. But first, the obstacles have to be overcome, the war has to end, just peace established and a transitional administration set up to move us toward a representative government.

We are willing to move toward this noble goal. We consider this as part of our duty to defend humanity against the scourge of intolerance, violence and fanaticism. But the international community and the democracies of the world should not waste any valuable time, and instead play their critical role to assist in any way possible the valiant people of Afghanistan overcome the obstacles that exist on the path to freedom, peace, stability and prosperity.

[PeterMP]

The war in Afghanistan simply doesn't cost that much (relatively of course). It is set to cost $65 billion in 2010. That includes the surge. The total federal budget is $3.6 trillion. So we're talking 1.8% of the budget here.

As for going bankrupt, we've been in the hole much deeper than this before in terms of debt to GDP ratio. Namely, during WWII, which everyone agrees stimulated the economy.

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Try adding in household debt and then redoing the math:

http://www.paulvaneeden.com/Household.debt

[Larry]

Try adding in household debt and then redoing the math:

http://www.paulvaneeden.com/Household.debt

And the reason why household debt has any relevance in a thread on the War on Terror is . . . ?

[PeterMP]

And the reason why household debt has any relevance in a thread on the War on Terror is . . . ?

Read the post I responded to. I'm sure you can figure it out.

[Larry]

Read the post I responded to. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Believe it or not, I did. (You being so kind as to quote it, and all)

He was talking about government debt. You're not. The reason you're bringing that into the conversation is . . . ?

[PeterMP]

Believe it or not, I did. (You being so kind as to quote it, and all)

He was talking about government debt. You're not. The reason you're bringing that into the conversation is . . . ?

Because the ability of the government to pay its debt is directly related to the amount of money the people that make up the government have.

If the government was borrowing money to pay for things and people were saving their personal money, then it wouldn't be an issue, but we know that federal debt is at all times high and so is personal debt.