Author Topic: Obama - playing tough on terrorism (Read 11381 times)

mviale · « **on:** August 01, 2007, 02:45:03 PM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

Murffieus · « **Reply #1 on:** August 02, 2007, 07:39:09 AM »

The key words there is "if necessary".

GWB would have gone into Pakistan months maybe years ago----but Pakistan is a rather fragile democracy right now----and there is afraid that an invasion of Pakistan could topple the Musharrif governemnt. Remember Pakistan has nukes----and the priority right now is to NOT upset the apple cart and allow Radical Islam to gain access or control of those Nukes.

The plan now is to support the Musharrif government in their effort to oust the radicals in Wirizstan province----if they aren't able to we may have to bite the bullet and take them out-----hence "if necessary" (in Obama's words).

It is refreshing though to se a leading Dem candidate seemingly break from moveon.org and advocate an aggressive military approach!

mviale · « **Reply #2 on:** August 02, 2007, 01:28:32 PM »

Pakistan didnt fit into GWB's plans, but they always wanted to take Afghanistan - long before 9/11.

Lets see if Bush/Cheyney are serious about taking down bin laden. So far they have missed the target with Iraq.

Murffieus · « **Reply #3 on:** August 02, 2007, 02:23:14 PM »

Mviale ----i don't think you understand the consequences of most things----I'm not talking down, but i mean that. The consequences here are that going into Pakistan would be very unstablizing there----remember if radical islam takes over----they have their nukes and plenty of nuke technology----the world immediately becomes a more dangerous place!

We have to work WITH Musharriff on this one----provide funding, logistical, and intel support and let him do it.

BTW---so much for Obama's negotiation posture!

mviale · « **Reply #4 on:** August 02, 2007, 05:06:43 PM »

I question this administrations resolve on dealing with bin laden - he killed 3000 americans and we find ourselves fighting the wrong enemy in Iraq.

I am pissed and you should be too.

Murffieus · « **Reply #5 on:** August 02, 2007, 09:52:23 PM »

Bin Laden may not even be alive or at the very least very ill or disabled----hasn't been seen in an authentic video for over a year.

If I were Al Quida -----i'd have his mug & voice on every video inspiring the faithful and be a great recruiting tool. But it doesn't happen----must be a reason.

More important Al Quida can't be given a sanctuary anywhere to train recruits and plan attacks----if MuShariff doesn't eliminate that sanctuary in NW Pakistan we will have to at some point.

In the meantime I would hope that you understand the delicate situation with Pakistan here-----there are consequences in invading Pakistan without being invited in!

ChicosBailBonds · « **Reply #6 on:** August 02, 2007, 09:58:23 PM »

But the country of Pakistan never attacked us.............yawn

mviale · « **Reply #7 on:** August 03, 2007, 08:48:10 AM »

I think that yawn does summarize this administrations resolve on dealing with Bin Laden. I can hear it now: (murf/chicos, this is a fictional version as I didnt collect it from a creditable source like a cartoon or fox) Dick C: "Georgie, don't worry about this bin laden thing, Americans have no memory. W, you will be a hero! Americans will goto the mall have a mocha chino/cinnabon or go to the ballgame and forget everything. In the meantime, we can take care of some business in Afghanistan and Iraq that is long overdue." Greedy Laughs start in from Rummie and wolfowitz, then condie pipes in too. Colin Powell has a serious face.

gjreda · « **Reply #8 on:** August 03, 2007, 09:51:40 AM »

Quote from: mviale on August 03, 2007, 08:48:10 AM

I think that yawn does summarize this administrations resolve on dealing with Bin Laden. I can hear it now: (murf/chicos, this is a fictional version as I didnt collect it from a creditable source like a cartoon or fox) Dick C: "Georgie, don't worry about this bin laden thing, Americans have no memory. W, you will be a hero! Americans will goto the mall have a mocha chino/cinnabon or go to the ballgame and forget everything. In the meantime, we can take care of some business in Afghanistan and Iraq that is long overdue." Greedy Laughs start in from Rummie and wolfowitz, then condie pipes in too. Colin Powell has a serious face.

Not to get OT, but reminds me of the show Lil' Bush on Comedy Central. Probably my favorite show on TV. Absolutely hilarious.

Murffieus · « **Reply #9 on:** August 03, 2007, 02:17:53 PM »

mviale-Eagle----when you can't answer with something substantial like responding about the consequences about invading Pakistan, but have to make a joke about it instead, tells me that in your heart you know we can't invade right now (for reasons I outline)!

gjreda · « **Reply #10 on:** August 03, 2007, 02:28:07 PM »

Quote from: Murffieus on August 03, 2007, 02:17:53 PM

mviale-Eagle----when you can't answer with something substantial like responding about the consequences about invading Pakistan, but have to make a joke about it instead, tells me that in your heart you know we can't invade right now (for reasons I outline)!

I'm not making a joke about anything. I'm not even in this argument. I simply brought up a TV show on Comedy Central about W, and I mentioned that I find it hilarious. I recommend it to anyone on the board, though I imagine that Chicos and Murff might find it offensive because it makes fun of W, Condi, Rummy, and Cheney (absolutely hilarious) but even you guys might enjoy it too as it does make light of the Dems (Lil' Bill and Hillary, Obama, Mikey Moore, Al Gore, etc.). It is OK to laugh sometimes Murff.

And personally, even before his whole invading Pakistan idea, I didn't like Obama and this has reaffirmed my stance.

mviale · « **Reply #11 on:** August 03, 2007, 07:07:25 PM »

I think Obama probably just lost the democratic nomination. I do believe his statment was irresponsible, but I also think Bush isnt serious about bin laden or the heat on Mush would be much more.

Murffieus · « **Reply #12 on:** August 03, 2007, 08:42:21 PM »

Well I like Obama's idea in principal for two reasons----first it's the first sign from him that he's not a pushov----and secondly, it may become necessary in the next few years if Pakistan doesn't take care of business.

War is necessary sometimes-----when you're under attack you have to respond or the enemy is incouraged and emboldened as he takes your non response as a sign of weakness-----I keep telling you young folk that sitting on your hands in isolation when you're under attack----just makes for a much larger war further down the pike with many more lives lost!

You can postpone the inevitable-----but the downside is much bigger consequences!

ChicosBailBonds · « **Reply #13 on:** August 03, 2007, 09:23:08 PM »

No mviale, it's because you are as consistent as a roulette wheel.

One day you are bitching that Iraq never attacked us and now you have a hard on over a guy that wants to attack Pakistan. The same guy that already has taken certain military options off the table.

Quite frankly, Hillary is going to destroy this empty suit because he is out of his league entirely.

Murffieus · « **Reply #14 on:** August 04, 2007, 10:14:16 AM »

Hillary will have her own problems as Petraeus comes back in mid September with an upbeat report. If indeed the worm is really turning in Iraq (and there are multiple signs it is), Hillary is going to have to answer not only why she voted for the war in the first place and then mad a 180 degree turn to vote for a definite premature and forced timetable for troop withdrawl (surrender & defeat)-----and then how that position sits with a stabalization in Iraq, which if she had her way wouldn't have happened because we would have surrendered.

The Clinton's technique of reading the polls and acting accordingly is a very disturbing
MO in a world of WMD----the next president is going to have to act ahead of the polls like GWB has!

mviale · « **Reply #15 on:** August 04, 2007, 02:53:25 PM »

I dont think Iraq threatened us at all, but bin laden does.

BTW, this is a moderate POV, you and murf are off center.

Murffieus · « **Reply #16 on:** August 04, 2007, 06:53:43 PM »

Saddam was no friend of the USA-----he was stoking the core problem by enabling terrorism (paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $35,000 each in very public ceromonies)-----had the recipe to manufacture WMD that could be sold to terrorists -----was ripping off the UN oil for food program for billions (plenty of money to finance terrorism-----tried to kill an ex US President-----shooting at our planes (an act of war by itself)-----harbored a terrorist group (answar al islam) in northern Iraq-----and who knows what else he had in store.

Saddam could have avoided war by simply complying with the UN resolutions----which he defied!

ChicosBailBonds · « **Reply #17 on:** August 05, 2007, 08:52:17 PM »

Quote from: mviale on August 04, 2007, 02:53:25 PM

I dont think Iraq threatened us at all, but bin laden does.

BTW, this is a moderate POV, you and murf are off center.

As are you my friend.

mviale · « **Reply #18 on:** August 06, 2007, 09:19:41 PM »

get your facts straight - most americans feel Bush could do more:

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

ChicosBailBonds · « **Reply #19 on:** August 06, 2007, 10:09:08 PM »

Quote from: mviale on August 06, 2007, 09:19:41 PM

get your facts straight - most americans feel Bush could do more:

http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm

Most Americans polled are against Gay Marriage, against partial birth abortion, etc, etc, .... are you ready to go there too mviale, or only on certain issues that appeal to you?

As for your pal Obama, in the last 10 days he's said he would meet with our enemies and dictators and bomb our allies like Pakistan. Wow, now that is leadership I have to say....smart leadership.

mviale · « **Reply #20 on:** August 06, 2007, 10:27:56 PM »

Off topic - very good chicos. On this issue, I am in the majority.

ChicosBailBonds · « **Reply #21 on:** August 06, 2007, 11:30:49 PM »

Quote from: mviale on August 06, 2007, 10:27:56 PM

Off topic - very good chicos. On this issue, I am in the majority.

Yes, when a question is asked of people can your President and gov't do more they answer in the affirmative.

Color me shocked.

When 10,000,000 husbands were asked if their wives could do more, the majority said yes also.

mviale · « **Reply #22 on:** August 07, 2007, 07:08:50 PM »

It sucks not being right - huh.

???

Murffieus · « **Reply #23 on:** August 07, 2007, 08:24:42 PM »

Mvaile---When Truman left office in 1952 only 22% of the American electorate thought he did a good job-----yet today the historians and history books say he's one of our greatest presidents----so go figure.

To show how politically illiterate the public is-----here Clinton desacrates the Oval Office with absolutely disgusting behavior and sets the worst possible morality example for the country possible-----and yet he maintains a 63% approval rating through it all-----again ----go figure!

ChicosBailBonds · « **Reply #24 on:** August 07, 2007, 08:32:20 PM »

Quote from: Murffieus on August 07, 2007, 08:24:42 PM

Mvaile---When Truman left office in 1952 only 22% of the American electorate thought he did a good job-----yet today the historians and history books say he's one of our greatest presidents----so go figure.

To show how politically illiterate the public is-----here Clinton desacrates the Oval Office with absolutely disgusting behavior and sets the worst possible morality example for the country possible-----and yet he maintains a 63% approval rating through it all-----again ----go figure!

Yet he could never get 50% of the people to vote for him...either time. These polls mean squat, they oversample Democrats and usually are of "adults" not of likely voters who actually are pulling the levers.

Philadelphia is one corrupt place, no wonder mviale hails from there.

News:

Recent Posts

Please Register - It's FREE!

Author Topic: Obama - playing tough on terrorism (Read 11381 times)