|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Rikaelus wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:I think we did what we needed to do after 9/11, if not more so. What saddens me is that Americans have, by and large, already given up the fight as shinier things have distracted them once more. I don't disagree with invading Afghanastan, just the manner in which we did it. I think we were overly hasty. We wanted to strike back at someone and I didn't think we paid enough mind to who that was. We ended up invading a sovereign nation with minimal international support. Of Afghanistan Bush said "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate" - elementary school politics could tell you that ultimatums are rarely effective. As for the people losing the will to continue the fight. Can you blame them? We were attacked by Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Al Qaeda still exists. Bin Laden is still alive, as far as we know. And our fight against them in Afghanastan has turned the Taliban and several other terrorist factions' attention towards us. Meanwhile Afghanistan has seen very little improvement and, in fact, several problems escalate such as opium production. Then Bush, the "white knight of the War on Terror", lies and misleads the American people and international community into supporting an invasion of Iraq, turning the collective attention away from those who attacked us on 9/11. Two perpetual wars for the price of one. Two unstable countries we've made a mess of for NATO to clean up. The problem with one person spearheading a cause is that that one person can also taint the cause, diminishing its appeal and influence. Given they claimed the attacks on the Twin Towers, I don't see how we could've been too hasty at all. A swift response was what was called for. Call us cowboys if you want. It's better than rolling over like the Spanish did when their trains were bombed.
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
Rikaelus wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:I think we did what we needed to do after 9/11, if not more so. What saddens me is that Americans have, by and large, already given up the fight as shinier things have distracted them once more. I don't disagree with invading Afghanastan, just the manner in which we did it. I think we were overly hasty. We wanted to strike back at someone and I didn't think we paid enough mind to who that was. We ended up invading a sovereign nation with minimal international support. Of Afghanistan Bush said "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate" - elementary school politics could tell you that ultimatums are rarely effective. As for the people losing the will to continue the fight. Can you blame them? We were attacked by Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Al Qaeda still exists. Bin Laden is still alive, as far as we know. And our fight against them in Afghanastan has turned the Taliban and several other terrorist factions' attention towards us. Meanwhile Afghanistan has seen very little improvement and, in fact, several problems escalate such as opium production. Then Bush, the "white knight of the War on Terror", lies and misleads the American people and international community into supporting an invasion of Iraq, turning the collective attention away from those who attacked us on 9/11. Two perpetual wars for the price of one. Two unstable countries we've made a mess of for NATO to clean up. The problem with one person spearheading a cause is that that one person can also taint the cause, diminishing its appeal and influence. Little known fact: Afghanistan actually offered up bin Laden before the invasion. The only stipulation was that he be tried under Islamic Sharia law. If I were The Decider I would of agreed immediately and gotten custody of him ASAP. With ground zero still smoldering no one is gonna give a fuck if you don't actually follow through on trying him under their theocratic BS. Fuck no one would really care too much if you dropped his ass the second you had him. Instead Bush went into Afghanistan all "fast and light" and here it is almost a decade later with no sign of ending, OBL running around making podcasts from his underground lair, opium production setting record levels, not to mention Iraq and all that. Really there is no need to go over all of these arguments. The War on Terror is a sick joke. If I were president the first thing I would do is declare the war on terror over. Second thing I would do is declare the war on drugs over. Third thing I would do is announce that with all the resources and shit freed up by ending those two idiotic "wars" I was declaring the final war to end all wars: The War on Stupid. Re: Opium, other little known fact is that El Bush was dumping big chunks of money on the Taliban for their tremendous success in keeping opium production down. Those fuckers were great at it when they weren't killing people for dancing or blowing up ancient statues. Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.  
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Rikaelus wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:I think we did what we needed to do after 9/11, if not more so. What saddens me is that Americans have, by and large, already given up the fight as shinier things have distracted them once more. I don't disagree with invading Afghanastan, just the manner in which we did it. I think we were overly hasty. We wanted to strike back at someone and I didn't think we paid enough mind to who that was. We ended up invading a sovereign nation with minimal international support. Of Afghanistan Bush said "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate" - elementary school politics could tell you that ultimatums are rarely effective. As for the people losing the will to continue the fight. Can you blame them? We were attacked by Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Al Qaeda still exists. Bin Laden is still alive, as far as we know. And our fight against them in Afghanastan has turned the Taliban and several other terrorist factions' attention towards us. Meanwhile Afghanistan has seen very little improvement and, in fact, several problems escalate such as opium production. Then Bush, the "white knight of the War on Terror", lies and misleads the American people and international community into supporting an invasion of Iraq, turning the collective attention away from those who attacked us on 9/11. Two perpetual wars for the price of one. Two unstable countries we've made a mess of for NATO to clean up. The problem with one person spearheading a cause is that that one person can also taint the cause, diminishing its appeal and influence. Little known fact: Afghanistan actually offered up bin Laden before the invasion. The only stipulation was that he be tried under Islamic Sharia law. If I were The Decider I would of agreed immediately and gotten custody of him ASAP. With ground zero still smoldering no one is gonna give a fuck if you don't actually follow through on trying him under their theocratic BS. Fuck no one would really care too much if you dropped his ass the second you had him. Instead Bush went into Afghanistan all "fast and light" and here it is almost a decade later with no sign of ending, OBL running around making podcasts from his underground lair, opium production setting record levels, not to mention Iraq and all that. Really there is no need to go over all of these arguments. The War on Terror is a sick joke. If I were president the first thing I would do is declare the war on terror over. Second thing I would do is declare the war on drugs over. Third thing I would do is announce that with all the resources and shit freed up by ending those two idiotic "wars" I was declaring the final war to end all wars: The War on Stupid. Re: Opium, other little known fact is that El Bush was dumping big chunks of money on the Taliban for their tremendous success in keeping opium production down. Those fuckers were great at it when they weren't killing people for dancing or blowing up ancient statues. So in other words, you would've negotiated with terrorists and gone back on what...20 years of policy?
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/1/2008
Posts: 1,647
Points: 2,558
Location: Bainbridge Island, WA
|
RichardAwesome wrote:Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Rikaelus wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:I think we did what we needed to do after 9/11, if not more so. What saddens me is that Americans have, by and large, already given up the fight as shinier things have distracted them once more. I don't disagree with invading Afghanastan, just the manner in which we did it. I think we were overly hasty. We wanted to strike back at someone and I didn't think we paid enough mind to who that was. We ended up invading a sovereign nation with minimal international support. Of Afghanistan Bush said "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate" - elementary school politics could tell you that ultimatums are rarely effective. As for the people losing the will to continue the fight. Can you blame them? We were attacked by Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Al Qaeda still exists. Bin Laden is still alive, as far as we know. And our fight against them in Afghanastan has turned the Taliban and several other terrorist factions' attention towards us. Meanwhile Afghanistan has seen very little improvement and, in fact, several problems escalate such as opium production. Then Bush, the "white knight of the War on Terror", lies and misleads the American people and international community into supporting an invasion of Iraq, turning the collective attention away from those who attacked us on 9/11. Two perpetual wars for the price of one. Two unstable countries we've made a mess of for NATO to clean up. The problem with one person spearheading a cause is that that one person can also taint the cause, diminishing its appeal and influence. Little known fact: Afghanistan actually offered up bin Laden before the invasion. The only stipulation was that he be tried under Islamic Sharia law. If I were The Decider I would of agreed immediately and gotten custody of him ASAP. With ground zero still smoldering no one is gonna give a fuck if you don't actually follow through on trying him under their theocratic BS. Fuck no one would really care too much if you dropped his ass the second you had him. Instead Bush went into Afghanistan all "fast and light" and here it is almost a decade later with no sign of ending, OBL running around making podcasts from his underground lair, opium production setting record levels, not to mention Iraq and all that. Really there is no need to go over all of these arguments. The War on Terror is a sick joke. If I were president the first thing I would do is declare the war on terror over. Second thing I would do is declare the war on drugs over. Third thing I would do is announce that with all the resources and shit freed up by ending those two idiotic "wars" I was declaring the final war to end all wars: The War on Stupid. Re: Opium, other little known fact is that El Bush was dumping big chunks of money on the Taliban for their tremendous success in keeping opium production down. Those fuckers were great at it when they weren't killing people for dancing or blowing up ancient statues. So in other words, you would've negotiated with terrorists and gone back on what...20 years of policy? There was no implication of negotiation. Unless you take "The only stipulation was that he be tried under Islamic Sharia law. If I were The Decider I would of agreed immediately and gotten custody of him ASAP." To mean negotiating with terrorists, which is negotiating with the government of Afghanistan. In which case, you're really just blanketing the country as being not just a bunch of terrorists. But a single terrorist. A meta-terrorist. Like a mega-zord. Safety + Peace
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
RichardAwesome wrote:So in other words, you would've negotiated with terrorists and gone back on what...20 years of policy? We're not talking some little group of African rebels who kidnap some relief workers and ask for money or weapons in exchange. We're talking an international movement, formed and continually augmented by people who think we're infringing on their way of life. Are they wrong?  We're not fucking with the balance of power in the region?
I've always liked this one: Quote:Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden.
It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies.
Simple fact is, we butt in. That has consequences. We ignore the outrage it causes, piss people off who's only means to fight us amount to "terrorist tactics", then continue to ignore what we might do to remove their will to fight. Do you think a baby is born a terrorist wanting to blow itself up for a jihad? Of course not. Social influence force people down that path and it's a hell of a lot easier to recruit people against us when we keep showing up more and more. You want to know one of the biggest wins for us in the War on Terror?
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008
Posts: 1,509
Points: 2,004
|
Dick Cheney's Mechanical Heart wrote:Rikaelus wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:I think we did what we needed to do after 9/11, if not more so. What saddens me is that Americans have, by and large, already given up the fight as shinier things have distracted them once more. I don't disagree with invading Afghanastan, just the manner in which we did it. I think we were overly hasty. We wanted to strike back at someone and I didn't think we paid enough mind to who that was. We ended up invading a sovereign nation with minimal international support. Of Afghanistan Bush said "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate" - elementary school politics could tell you that ultimatums are rarely effective. As for the people losing the will to continue the fight. Can you blame them? We were attacked by Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Al Qaeda still exists. Bin Laden is still alive, as far as we know. And our fight against them in Afghanastan has turned the Taliban and several other terrorist factions' attention towards us. Meanwhile Afghanistan has seen very little improvement and, in fact, several problems escalate such as opium production. Then Bush, the "white knight of the War on Terror", lies and misleads the American people and international community into supporting an invasion of Iraq, turning the collective attention away from those who attacked us on 9/11. Two perpetual wars for the price of one. Two unstable countries we've made a mess of for NATO to clean up. The problem with one person spearheading a cause is that that one person can also taint the cause, diminishing its appeal and influence. Little known fact: Afghanistan actually offered up bin Laden before the invasion. The only stipulation was that he be tried under Islamic Sharia law. If I were The Decider I would of agreed immediately and gotten custody of him ASAP. With ground zero still smoldering no one is gonna give a fuck if you don't actually follow through on trying him under their theocratic BS. Fuck no one would really care too much if you dropped his ass the second you had him. Instead Bush went into Afghanistan all "fast and light" and here it is almost a decade later with no sign of ending, OBL running around making podcasts from his underground lair, opium production setting record levels, not to mention Iraq and all that. Really there is no need to go over all of these arguments. The War on Terror is a sick joke. If I were president the first thing I would do is declare the war on terror over. Second thing I would do is declare the war on drugs over. Third thing I would do is announce that with all the resources and shit freed up by ending those two idiotic "wars" I was declaring the final war to end all wars: The War on Stupid. Re: Opium, other little known fact is that El Bush was dumping big chunks of money on the Taliban for their tremendous success in keeping opium production down. Those fuckers were great at it when they weren't killing people for dancing or blowing up ancient statues. Dick, Sudan offered him up too, but Clinton wouldn't take him because of the same jurisprudence that the US exercised with afghanistan. So its not like it fucking matters who is in charge... And Bin Laden did the exact same thing in both countries...as soon as he got a whiff of it (almost immediately) he ran....IF we did agree to that anyway...its like having a murderer on trial with a jury full of serial killers. Do you really think anyone over there would have tried him justly when he is waging a holy war that they support?! Here is the dialogue that would have taken place.
Bin Laden " I killed infidels that threaten the work of god..." Jury : "thats not sooo bad i guess...i mean they ARE infidels.... Bin laden: " so we are cool? praise allah?" Jury : " Yeah, we cool....just don't do it again *wink wink*, oh we are gonna put you in "prison" (insert posh terrorist HQ here, with some fake bars on the window) where you can run your operations. And we did nothing wrong in afghanistan.....
Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
Yes, I would "negotiate with terrorists". OBL in exchange for some BS trial is a damn good deal. It's not like we actually have to honor the outcome, fuck if they find him not guilty then put them all on trial for aiding and abetting. Or don't even let them have their stupid trial, take OBL and have a real trial instead. No one is going to give a shit. Let them all spout their BS on global television, the world was united behind us then, they would of been cheering for us to just line them up against a wall and shoot them. The fact is, al Qaeda has won. They've gotten everything they wanted and more. Under my scenario we're debating whether or not we should lie to terrorists, in the real world bin Laden and crew are laughing their asses off while our empire continues to crumble. Re: Sudan, yeah Clinton is a dick but he probably couldn't of really gotten away with it then, the Republicans would of torn him up over it, those were the Wag the Dog days afterall. At least he got some shots off and took the guy seriously though. No one has ever come closer to offing OBL. Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
Giller [GwDR wrote:]
And we did nothing wrong in afghanistan..... Then why the hell is Osama and friends still running lose? Why has opium production skyrocketed? Why is the Taliban still powerful? Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 11/6/2007
Posts: 1,341
Points: 15
Location: Portland
|
Giller wrote:
Dick,
Sudan offered him up too, but Clinton wouldn't take him because of the same jurisprudence that the US exercised with afghanistan.
Not sure of your use of the word "jurisprudence", but Clinton tried to take Bin Laden. The FBI nor the CIA would certify that Bin Laden was responsible for certain actions (like Somalia (Black Hawd Down)), allowing the US "basing rights" to go after Bin Laden. Clinton wanted to send in military task forces to get Bin Laden, but the Republicans laughed at him stating that Bin Laden was a towel head wearing camel jockey in the middle of the desert and not capable of harming the U.S.
If this is what you mean when you use the word "jurisprudence" with regards to your saying that Clinton wouldn't take 'him', then you are exactly right. If you support John McCain and/or George W. Bush, please click here.“I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again.” - Ben Bernanke
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
BadHorsie wrote:
Giller wrote:
Dick,
Sudan offered him up too, but Clinton wouldn't take him because of the same jurisprudence that the US exercised with afghanistan.
Not sure of your use of the word "jurisprudence", but Clinton tried to take Bin Laden. The FBI nor the CIA would certify that Bin Laden was responsible for certain actions (like Somalia (Black Hawd Down)), allowing the US "basing rights" to go after Bin Laden. Clinton wanted to send in military task forces to get Bin Laden, but the Republicans laughed at him stating that Bin Laden was a towel head wearing camel jockey in the middle of the desert and not capable of harming the U.S.
If this is what you mean when you use the word "jurisprudence" with regards to your saying that Clinton wouldn't take 'him', then you are exactly right.
Funny. I recall Clinton refusing to use a military strike that could've killed Bin Laden. :)
|
|
|
Rank: Polio Power!
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User
Joined: 8/1/2008
Posts: 658
Points: 81
Location: SoCal
|
Rikaelus wrote:RichardAwesome wrote:So in other words, you would've negotiated with terrorists and gone back on what...20 years of policy? We're not talking some little group of African rebels who kidnap some relief workers and ask for money or weapons in exchange. We're talking an international movement, formed and continually augmented by people who think we're infringing on their way of life. Are they wrong? We're not fucking with the balance of power in the region?
I've always liked this one: Quote:Saudi Arabia is home to some of Islam's holiest sites and the deployment of US forces there was seen as a historic betrayal by many Islamists, notably Osama Bin Laden.
It is one of the main reasons given by the Saudi-born dissident - blamed by Washington for the 11 September attacks - to justify violence against the United States and its allies.
Simple fact is, we butt in. That has consequences. We ignore the outrage it causes, piss people off who's only means to fight us amount to "terrorist tactics", then continue to ignore what we might do to remove their will to fight. Do you think a baby is born a terrorist wanting to blow itself up for a jihad? Of course not. Social influence force people down that path and it's a hell of a lot easier to recruit people against us when we keep showing up more and more. You want to know one of the biggest wins for us in the War on Terror?
And leave Israel to the dogs. That's some brilliant foreign policy right there.
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
RichardAwesome wrote:BadHorsie wrote:
Giller wrote:
Dick,
Sudan offered him up too, but Clinton wouldn't take him because of the same jurisprudence that the US exercised with afghanistan.
Not sure of your use of the word "jurisprudence", but Clinton tried to take Bin Laden. The FBI nor the CIA would certify that Bin Laden was responsible for certain actions (like Somalia (Black Hawd Down)), allowing the US "basing rights" to go after Bin Laden. Clinton wanted to send in military task forces to get Bin Laden, but the Republicans laughed at him stating that Bin Laden was a towel head wearing camel jockey in the middle of the desert and not capable of harming the U.S.
If this is what you mean when you use the word "jurisprudence" with regards to your saying that Clinton wouldn't take 'him', then you are exactly right.
Funny. I recall Clinton refusing to use a military strike that could've killed Bin Laden. :) orly?Maybe you are recalling how all the right-wingers were mad at Clinton because his efforts to kill bin Laden distracted from their efforts to find out where Clinton's penis had been? Perhaps if Clinton's penis had been near bin Laden then Bush and Condi would of taken it a bit more seriously when they saw "bin Laden determined to strike in US". Or when the Clinton national security team briefed them during the transition that the number one threat facing the US was al Qaeda. Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.
|
|
|
Rank: Coathanger Abortion
Groups: {pDs} Member, Server Admin
Joined: 5/17/2006
Posts: 3,487
Points: 1,990
Location: Undisclosed Location
|
RichardAwesome wrote:
And leave Israel to the dogs. That's some brilliant foreign policy right there.
Are all Arabs dogs, or all Muslims? Or perhaps it is just the Palestinians? Razor wrote:Killing people is good therapy.
|
|
|
Rank: Administration
Groups: {pDs} Member, Registered User, Server Admin, Administration
Joined: 3/27/2008
Posts: 1,793
Points: 3,380
Location: Arizona
|
RichardAwesome wrote:And leave Israel to the dogs. That's some brilliant foreign policy right there. We leave plenty of other countries "to the dogs". Where's it written that we're obligated to protect Israel and put ourselves in the line of fire? It's just proof the Crusades have never ended.
|
|
|
Rank: Fecal Impaction For the Win!
Groups: Registered User, Server Admin
Joined: 1/13/2008
Posts: 1,509
Points: 2,004
|
BadHorsie wrote:
Not sure of your use of the word "jurisprudence", but Clinton tried to take Bin Laden. The FBI nor the CIA would certify that Bin Laden was responsible for certain actions (like Somalia (Black Hawd Down)), allowing the US "basing rights" to go after Bin Laden. Clinton wanted to send in military task forces to get Bin Laden, but the Republicans laughed at him stating that Bin Laden was a towel head wearing camel jockey in the middle of the desert and not capable of harming the U.S.
If this is what you mean when you use the word "jurisprudence" with regards to your saying that Clinton wouldn't take 'him', then you are exactly right.
Yea, Jurisprudence meaning that they would not move on capture until the evidence was good enough. And I doubt "the republicans" had much to do with it. Which ones are you referring to? The west Rochester Republican mothers club? I hear they are a bunch of bitches.... A president doesn't need congress approval for military manuevers....at least not for 90 days. So nobody kept Clinton from doing anything except his advisors and himself. Don't try and blame some nebulous "others" for holding him back. Look, hindsight is 20/20....I think Clinton did the right thing by not going after him because he didn't have enough informations or a crystal ball.... My point is that Dick was saying that Bush should be held to the fire because he didn't act fast enough or capitalize on an opportunity when he didn't have enough information either. It was the same situation....just different bombs and different targets.
Quote:
"Who the fuck is Leon Switch and why does he know we have a dog?" - Mrs. Giller
|
|
|
| Users browsing this topic |
|
Guest
|