UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (43) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 1947452  
Subject: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 4:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 73
While the Cheney clan scurries around accusing Justice Department lawyers of supporting al Qaeda and accusing the President of pretending we're not at war...

President Obama has been quietly kicking the spit out of the enemy.

The Pakistani Taliban confirmed Tuesday that a senior commander wanted in the deadly 2006 bombing of the U.S. consulate in Karachi was killed in a suspected American missile strike in northwestern Pakistan.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0...

Last year Obama did more damage to the Taliban than at any time since the initial invasion. It appears this year we're only picking up the pace.

And though Mr Obama is willing to admit his country’s failings, he is quite ruthless about blowing its enemies to scraps. American drones fired missiles at suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas 55 times last year, killing hundreds of jihadists and who knows how many civilians. This year, the killing has accelerated; so far more than a dozen strikes have been reported. Mr Obama orders assassinations at a far brisker pace than George Bush ever did.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0...

Derek
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506563 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 4:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Good for him, seriously. I said that after he got his first real briefing that he'd do the right thing (after they used the smelling salts on him to wake him back up).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506568 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 4:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
(after they used the smelling salts on him to wake him back up).



lol, true enough

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SGIZ1 Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506575 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 4:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Obama?

I think you mean our military, and military strategy by generals, etc.

All Obama has to do is say ya or nay, they aren't his ideas.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506580 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 4:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Good for him, seriously. I said that after he got his first real briefing that he'd do the right thing (after they used the smelling salts on him to wake him back up).

Yeah, his naivete concerned me a bit but I figured he seemed open to being educated. But I will point out that in fact he signalled a much more aggressive posture towards targets in Pakistan than any other candidate. In fact Republicans mocked Obama for saying he'd hit the enemy across the border.

Seems pretty clear he was right all along.

Derek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheSmay Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506581 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 4:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 18
All Obama has to do is say ya or nay, they aren't his ideas.

Uh...did you miss the whole presidential campaign? The whole, get out of Iraq and pour more troops into Afghanistan where they belong, speech he was giving nightly? I'd post a link, but seeing as you might be one of the only people in the world who didn't catch those comments, it should be easy enough for you to Google.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506583 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 4:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Obama?

I think you mean our military, and military strategy by generals, etc.

All Obama has to do is say ya or nay, they aren't his ideas.


Well they're certainly not new ideas, but he has been their champion.

Republicans, on the other hand, mocked Obama as "naive" for them.

Derek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DarthFerret Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506595 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 5:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
American drones fired missiles at suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas 55 times last year, killing hundreds of jihadists and who knows how many civilians. This year, the killing has accelerated; so far more than a dozen strikes have been reported. Mr Obama orders assassinations at a far brisker pace than George Bush ever did.

Targeted assassinations are to Obama what China was to Richard Nixon and welfare reform was to Bill Clinton and Medicare Part D was to George Bush: the guys that are against it are on your team, so there's very little political cost.

-Darth

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DarthFerret Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506596 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 5:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Yeah, his naivete concerned me a bit but I figured he seemed open to being educated. But I will point out that in fact he signalled a much more aggressive posture towards targets in Pakistan than any other candidate. In fact Republicans mocked Obama for saying he'd hit the enemy across the border.

Seems pretty clear he was right all along.

Derek


This was an impossibility at the time that he was saying it. Pakistan's gov't and intell services hadn't yet woken up to what a threat the Taliban and AQ were to them. Now they have, so it's game on.

-Darth

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506604 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 5:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
This was an impossibility at the time that he was saying it. Pakistan's gov't and intell services hadn't yet woken up to what a threat the Taliban and AQ were to them. Now they have, so it's game on.

They were well aware of the threat. They just didn't care before. When TTP started attacking Pakistan's commercial centers and they lost butt tons of cash, then they got serious.

The Taliban served their purpose until they didn't. Funny how that works.... bastards.

Derek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CairnDad Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506606 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 5:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Last year Obama did more damage to the Taliban than at any time since the initial invasion. It appears this year we're only picking up the pace.

Kudos to President Obama.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: spookysquid Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506608 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 5:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
This was an impossibility at the time that he was saying it. Pakistan's gov't and intell services hadn't yet woken up to what a threat the Taliban and AQ were to them. Now they have, so it's game on.

Lol! You really believe this? They just all of a sudden got a call from Obama or some other event that happens to coincide with his presidency, the guy on the phone says "Hey, Pakistani intel, you might want to start looking out for all those Taliban in your tribal areas. Bad guys, they are", and they, having received this wisdom, realize that of course it is right, of course that they have been so stupid to ignore it all this time, and how correct it is to get more aggressive in allowing the US to target "cross border"?

-spookysquid

Print the post Back To Top
Author: streetstupid Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506609 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 5:30 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Speak softly but carry a big stick.

Obama appears to know his history and has taken some advice from Teddy R.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506615 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 5:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Lol! You really believe this? They just all of a sudden got a call from Obama or some other event that happens to coincide with his presidency, the guy on the phone says "Hey, Pakistani intel, you might want to start looking out for all those Taliban in your tribal areas. Bad guys, they are", and they, having received this wisdom, realize that of course it is right, of course that they have been so stupid to ignore it all this time, and how correct it is to get more aggressive in allowing the US to target "cross border"?

The old rules said we could go after the enemy if in "hot pursuit" which almost never happened. Until it did. The response was taking fire from the effing Pakistani military.

They're lucky we had an incompetent NCOIC at the time.

Derek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DarthFerret Big gold star, 5000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506617 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 5:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
spooky,

Do you find it coincidental that most people that you speak with regularly have large red handprints on their foreheads? But I digress...

The coincidence wasn't with Obama's presidency. It was with bombs blowing up in Pakistani commercial centers. Even the Kool-Aid intoxicated Derek can see clear on that count: http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=28345490

-Darth

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TheDope1 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506621 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 5:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In fact Republicans mocked Obama for saying he'd hit the enemy across the border.

Let's be clear. Obama said (or at least implied) he'd invade over the border. I don't think anybody objected to drone attacks. Obama also kicked off a storm with his air-raiding villages comment.

What he likely did was a fairly smart thing. The ISI's involvement, as you know, has always been about getting at India. He probably made noise along the lines of, 'let us blow up these jerks or we propose IndiaFTA (along the lines of NAFTA)'. The Pakistanis know they can't compete with India long term. Plus it helped that the Taliban was stupid enough to blow up some ISI guys.

Seems pretty clear he was right all along.

Who knew he'd be quite the Bushie? How very...Republican of him.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LurkerMom Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506642 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 7:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
President Obama has been quietly kicking the spit out of the enemy.


_________________________________________________

Certainly glad to hear it. Sending in 30+thousand more troops does make a big difference, doesn't it? Thanks to the Generals telling the prez it was what was needed to get the job done.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: huibs Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Ticker Guide SC1 Red Motley Fool One Everlasting Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506644 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 7:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Sending in 30+thousand more troops does make a big difference, doesn't it?


..probably not..

..the huge increase in drone attacks is more likely the reason..

..that's something obama endorsed as well..

Print the post Back To Top
Author: bcairns Big funky green star, 20000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506649 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 8:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Certainly glad to hear it. Sending in 30+thousand more troops does make a big difference, doesn't it? Thanks to the Generals telling the prez it was what was needed to get the job done.

Who cares? He's fighting the last battle over again and totally ignoring current threats. Reactive policy is the problem, not the solution.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506665 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 9:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Certainly glad to hear it. Sending in 30+thousand more troops does make a big difference, doesn't it? Thanks to the Generals telling the prez it was what was needed to get the job done.

Just think, if Smirky McDipsh-t had done this years ago our troops might all be home by now saving untold lives.

Derek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506666 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 9:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Who cares? He's fighting the last battle over again and totally ignoring current threats. Reactive policy is the problem, not the solution.

As though you have the foggiest notion of what you're talking about.

Derek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Michaelpfool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506672 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 9:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
a key point any "hero" like Cheney needs is an enemy. OBL served that very nice, but killing him off would have killed off his "war".

Cheney should be tried for treason.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: WuLong Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506676 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 10:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Pakistan's gov't and intell services hadn't yet woken up to what a threat the Taliban and AQ were to them. Now they have, so it's game on.

Kinda.
The crackdown may to be related to efforts by some Taliban leaders to explore talks with Western and Afghan authorities independently of Pakistan, the UN official said. Pakistan is widely suspected of backing the Afghan Taliban in a bid to maintain influence in Afghanistan, a charge Islamabad has long denied. But Pakistan may also be wary of Taliban attempts to initiate talks without its involvement or sanction.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2010/0224/...

So, Pakistan has tried to play both sides and the "threat" they have woken up to is that they might get cut out.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LurkerMom Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506678 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 10:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Just think, if Smirky McDipsh-t had done this years ago our troops might all be home by now saving untold lives.

Derek

____________________________________________

And just think of all the troops lost under the prez...just from roadside bombs before Generals McChrystal & Petraeus finally, after months of dithering by the prez was able to get things moving on the wot.

"Roadside bombs are causing the majority of US and Nato deaths in Afghanistan. According to figures from the US-based Joint IED Defeat Organisation, the number of incidents from improvised explosive devices (IEDs) rose to 828 last month, the highest level since the war began, and more than twice as many as in July 2008."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/12/afghanistan-jour...

"Nearly Twice as Many US Military Deaths in Afghanistan in 2009 As in 2008"

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/01/change-nearly-t...

McChrystal’s War...
General McChrystal's Plan for Afghanistan


http://www.newsweek.com/id/216237

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506684 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 11:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4

And just think of all the troops lost under the prez...just from roadside bombs before Generals McChrystal & Petraeus finally, after months of dithering by the prez was able to get things moving on the wot.


Actually the reason McChrystal is in charge is because Obama moved and fired Bush's appointee. In fact he also doubled the number of troops Bush had in country.

But for some reason in LOLMom world, the couple months that Obama took to consider a shift in strategy is much longer than the several years Bush took to do anything about his disastrous policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Derek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: nigelwhalmsley Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506690 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 11:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 84
"And just think of all the troops lost under the prez..."

Lady, you need to stop and think before you type. 'Prez' Bush is the one who STARTED the wars that have KILLED over 4,000 and who knows how many came home SCARRED, physically, mentally, or both.

If you want to berate a 'Prez' for lives lost and damaged, start with Prez Bush. If you don't, then pipe down with your useless partisan hatred.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MrCynic Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506695 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/3/2010 11:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
And though Mr Obama is willing to admit his country’s failings, he is quite ruthless about blowing its enemies to scraps.

LOL! It seems he advocates same approach to dealing with our enemies that I do. And now the left wingers cheer it on.

Could it be that all that hand wringing about the morality of war, the killing of innocent civilians and bla bla bla was just so much opportunistic garbage?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShouldKnowBetter Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506703 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 12:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'll be paraphrasing what democrats usually say:


Look at all those dead innocent people those attacked caused.

or...


The War is lost. We need to bring the troops home.


or....


He lied to us to get this approved.


or....


We did not approve this. He went beyond the measure


Or…


Even though it was successful, if we had the vote again, I still will not vote for it

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ShouldKnowBetter Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506704 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 1:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If you don't, then pipe down with your useless partisan hatred.



You start first.....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LurkerMom Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506772 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 10:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Actually the reason McChrystal is in charge is because Obama moved and fired Bush's appointee. In fact he also doubled the number of troops Bush had in country.

Well of course the prezbo replaced former President Bush's appointee. He wanted to make it look as if he know what he was doing and Bush did not. The prez even tried to steal the victory in Iraq from Bush.

But for some reason in Mom's world, the couple months that Obama took to consider a shift in strategy is much longer than the several years Bush took to do anything about his disastrous policies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

LOLDerek



Are you telling us the soldiers who fought and died did it all for nothing? I'm sure they will be happy to know what you think of them.

And the prez took only a couple of months? Remember the Mother of a fallen soldier who had pleaded to Obama to get off his dead donkey side and do something? Send the troops in or get them the hell out. Of course you do. I brought her up several times to you and your eyes, as they often do glossed over and you ignored it.
Yep, the dithering prez...replaced his General then ignored him.

snip
"To think we are nearly a year into the Obama administration and the president has yet to make a decision as Commander in Chief in Afghanistan. A total reversal from his campaign rhetoric as he made Afghanistan the centerpiece of his foreign policy, and a piece of the campaign he used as proof that Democrats, too, could be tough on our nation’s enemies. Things have changed in a year."


http://westernexperience.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/mother-of-...

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: GardenStateFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506781 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 10:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Derek, I admire you very much, and I know your POV is very different than mine in many ways. So forgive me when I say that I'm struggling with this part of your post:

American drones fired missiles at suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders in Pakistan’s tribal areas 55 times last year, killing hundreds of jihadists and who knows how many civilians. This year, the killing has accelerated; so far more than a dozen strikes have been reported. Mr Obama orders assassinations at a far brisker pace than George Bush ever did.

Well placed assassinations, I'm actually mentally okay with (I don't know if I can say "morally", but from a utilitarian standpoint, if a few bad guys are taken out in order to cut the head off the serpent, I get it).

But the civilians, who are simply in harm's way, those I struggle with. They're people, with families, who weren't lucky enough to be born in the right place. Maybe they agree with the jihadists, maybe the absolutely don't but can't get away.

I just have a lot of issues applauding the drone attacks when I measure the cost in simple human lives, rather than American lives vs. "their" lives.

Can you help me understand how the higher cost in civilian lives makes sense in the bigger picture, other than simply "The sooner this war ends, the better"? Or is that really it?

GSF

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sano Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506787 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 10:19 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 9
The prez even tried to steal the victory in Iraq from Bush.

Victory????

Ooh, ooh, I love victory. What did we win?

A ginormous number of maimed soldiers to support ther est of their lives (except in a certain red state, where all disabled folk can pound sand).

And a sectarian divide, replete with non-stop bombings, as deep as it's ever been, yet tilting perilously toward Iran.

Where's the ginsu knives?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: LurkerMom Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506798 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 10:50 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"The prez even tried to steal the victory in Iraq from Bush."

Victory????

Ooh, ooh, I love victory. What did we win?

______________________________

Out of the mouth of bumbling Joe...

On Larry King Live last night, Vice President Joe Biden said Iraq "could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/vice-preside...

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506876 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 12:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"Certainly glad to hear it. Sending in 30+thousand more troops does make a big difference, doesn't it? Thanks to the Generals telling the prez it was what was needed to get the job done."

You must be really furious for President Bush for not doing this when he was still president and Obama was advocating this just as a candidate.

Oh wait, your not. I forgot the double standard that makes your posts so funny to read.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506906 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 2:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The Pakistani Taliban confirmed Tuesday that a senior commander wanted in the deadly 2006 bombing of the U.S. consulate in Karachi was killed in a suspected American missile strike in northwestern Pakistan.


The wording is odd. How is it a "suspected" American missile strike? Wouldn't we know if it was our missile strike?

Keith

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MATZOID Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1506997 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 4:07 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
"And just think of all the troops lost under the prez..."

Lady, you need to stop and think before you type. 'Prez' Bush is the one who STARTED the wars that have KILLED over 4,000 and who knows how many came home SCARRED, physically, mentally, or both.

If you want to berate a 'Prez' for lives lost and damaged, start with Prez Bush. If you don't, then pipe down with your useless partisan hatred.



Should I even bother to look at who said this? Would her initals be LM? And that's only because I know Ann Coulter doesn't post here.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: MATZOID Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1507001 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 4:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
In fact Republicans mocked Obama for saying he'd hit the enemy across the border.


Of course, they did. That's where the real enemy is, but as long as we had Pakistan on our side (just like as long as we had Saddam on our side), we would support them.

For ConReps this was not a war about ridding the world of terrorism. That would be as disastrous for them as the end of Communism was. In fact, that's why they chose "terrorism". A tactic, not a real enemy. You cannot rid the world of terrorism. There will always be some nut willing to blow himself up or fly a plane into a building for political reasons. A permanent "enemy"! Yippee!

The point of the war, as confessed by none other than the architects themselves at the PNAC, was to ensure the US remained the number one military and economic power in the world. In order to maintain public support they needed that "Pearl Harbor event" to scare people into supporting it. After that, they needed an ongoing enemy to keep it going.

Now what was that definition of terrorism again? Using fear and violence to achieve a political end?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: WuLong Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1507065 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 6:42 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If you want to berate a 'Prez' for lives lost and damaged, start with Prez Bush.
Not to mention that Rove has pretty much admitted that they hadn't a clue.

In offering his take on history, Mr. Rove ruminates on what would have happened had Mr. Bush known the truth about the absent unconventional weapons, known as weapons of mass destruction, or W.M.D., in Iraq. While the opportunity to bring democracy to the Middle East as a bulwark against Islamic extremism “justified the decision to remove Saddam Hussein,” Mr. Rove says the suspected weapons were the primary justification for war.

“Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D.? I doubt it,” he writes. “Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat. The Bush administration itself would probably have sought other ways to constrain Saddam, bring about regime change, and deal with Iraq’s horrendous human rights violations.”
(emphasis mine)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/us/politics/04rove.html

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1507106 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 11:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Well placed assassinations, I'm actually mentally okay with (I don't know if I can say "morally", but from a utilitarian standpoint, if a few bad guys are taken out in order to cut the head off the serpent, I get it).

Yeah I dont' see the issue with that either. As long as its a military target, no big deal.

But the civilians, who are simply in harm's way, those I struggle with. They're people, with families, who weren't lucky enough to be born in the right place. Maybe they agree with the jihadists, maybe the absolutely don't but can't get away.

I just have a lot of issues applauding the drone attacks when I measure the cost in simple human lives, rather than American lives vs. "their" lives.

Can you help me understand how the higher cost in civilian lives makes sense in the bigger picture, other than simply "The sooner this war ends, the better"? Or is that really it?


I should have clarified. One of the first things McChrystal did when he took over was ban the use of airstrikes in populated areas. The reason, as you note, is that we hit civilians which is obviously something to be avoided not only on moral grounds but to prevent creating even MORE problems getting the people on our side.

Obviously it's never going to be 100%. But it's much better than it used to be. And frankly we don't have much choice. The Pakistanis aren't very helpful and have an incompetent military. Sending in our own ground forces is basically out of the question short of a hot pursuit (and even those can end in exchanges between the US and Pakistan.)

Derek

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1507107 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 11:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

The wording is odd. How is it a "suspected" American missile strike? Wouldn't we know if it was our missile strike?


Our government doesn't always acknowledge responsibility. Pakistan is technically denied territory so it can be complicated taking credit.

Derek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JustWhoIAm Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1507121 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/4/2010 11:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Our government doesn't always acknowledge responsibility.



That can't possibly be the answer. Under Bush maybe, but not under our newly transparent administration.

Keith -- noting this as sarcasm to avoid a PA war.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ghdude Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1507129 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/5/2010 12:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
That can't possibly be the answer. Under Bush maybe, but not under our newly transparent administration.

Keith -- noting this as sarcasm to avoid a PA war.


You should have also noted it was ridiculous since Obama never promised to disclose national security secrets.

Derek

Print the post Back To Top
Author: GardenStateFool Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 1507152 of 1947452
Subject: Re: Strong on Defense Date: 3/5/2010 8:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I should have clarified. One of the first things McChrystal did when he took over was ban the use of airstrikes in populated areas. The reason, as you note, is that we hit civilians which is obviously something to be avoided not only on moral grounds but to prevent creating even MORE problems getting the people on our side.

Thank you, that does help a lot, I appreciate it!

GSF

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (43) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement