Mission Accomplished

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Mission Accomplished
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
May 6, 2011 8:29 AM
....In Afghanistan.....I mean Pakistan.... Osama is dead. Bring our troops home. As Dick Cheney put it in 1995 regarding Desert Storm ....."for the dead soldiers and their families...this was not a cheap war".

If Barry continues the carnage over there, then he by default enters into the W kingdom of "war lover".
May 6, 2011 8:29am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
May 6, 2011 11:20 AM
War lover?
May 6, 2011 11:20am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
May 6, 2011 12:09 PM
The shoe does seem to fit.

Let's just hope it doesn't get thrown at the President this time. ;)
May 6, 2011 12:09pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
May 6, 2011 12:28 PM
Footwedge;761211 wrote:....In Afghanistan.....I mean Pakistan.... Osama is dead. Bring our troops home. As Dick Cheney put it in 1995 regarding Desert Storm ....."for the dead soldiers and their families...this was not a cheap war".

Does such a thing exist? There's either war, which is costly no matter how much you try to limit it, or non-war.
If Barry continues the carnage over there, then he by default enters into the W kingdom of "war lover
With popularity ratings in the 20's, W either loved war a lot, or was so committed to the long-term goal of keeping Americans safe (no matter how misguided) that he sacrificed his own popularity and short-term legacy.

And W became a war "lover" because Wild Bill was a confrontation avoider (when it came to terrorism).
May 6, 2011 12:28pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
May 6, 2011 12:50 PM
There's a reason Barry basically continued all of Bush's policies and programs regarding the war against terrorism: it's worked. The US has systematically killed top people in al queda, found ways to locate and dry up money, and generally disrupt their ability to plan and carry out attacks, especially in the US.

I doubt that means we can just bring home all the troops from Afghanistan before they're able to stand on their own, but I'd say we're closer to that day than we were before.

And no, it doesn't make Obama a war lover. It just makes him Commander in Chief and means he's doing what he feels is necessary to keep this country (and others) safer.
May 6, 2011 12:50pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
May 6, 2011 1:07 PM
Writerbuckeye;761383 wrote:And no, it doesn't make Obama a war lover. It just makes him Commander in Chief and means he's doing what he feels is necessary to keep this country (and others) safer.
Did I just see Writerbuckeye defend President Obama?

I now question everything I thought I knew ...


Also, for what it's worth to the OP, Bin Laden wasn't "it." He was the face of terror and a major (maybe THE major) leader in radical Islamist terror movements today. However, his death doesn't mean the rest of the radicals are just going to take their ball and go home.

The enemy isn't dead, because the enemy is terrorism. It is just more anonymous than it was before now.
May 6, 2011 1:07pm
ernest_t_bass's avatar

ernest_t_bass

12th Son of the Lama

24,984 posts
May 6, 2011 1:24 PM
O-Trap;761400 wrote:Did I just see Writerbuckeye defend President Obama?

I now question everything I thought I knew ...

Wait until he supports SB5, then start to question stuff :D
May 6, 2011 1:24pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
May 6, 2011 1:26 PM
O-Trap;761400 wrote:Did I just see Writerbuckeye defend President Obama?

I now question everything I thought I knew ....
I think we all do that from time to time.

Or at least we should. Right Gibby?
May 6, 2011 1:26pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
May 6, 2011 3:54 PM
jhay78;761372 wrote:
With popularity ratings in the 20's, W either loved war a lot, or was so committed to the long-term goal of keeping Americans safe (no matter how misguided) that he sacrificed his own popularity and short-term legacy.
Under Bush's GWOT, there were more terrorist attacks on US allies/interests than before 9-11. If that's keeping us safer, I'd love to here your logic on keeping us less safe.
And W became a war "lover" because Wild Bill was a confrontation avoider (when it came to terrorism).
I hardly think Clinton was a "confrontation avoider". Balkan Wars ring a bell?
May 6, 2011 3:54pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
May 6, 2011 4:08 PM
Writerbuckeye;761383 wrote:There's a reason Barry basically continued all of Bush's policies and programs regarding the war against terrorism: it's worked. The US has systematically killed top people in al queda, found ways to locate and dry up money, and generally disrupt their ability to plan and carry out attacks, especially in the US.
It didn't work. It made attacks far more prevelant. See my responce to Jhay. You people that still think occupying Iraq/Afganistan is somehow making us safer, need to read the published reasons behind Al Quada missions...and why they orchestrate these terrorist acts.

Upgraded security stopped a number of attacks since our invasion...had absolutely nothing to do with with occupation and keeping the terrorists "disorganized". Shoe bomber anyone?
I doubt that means we can just bring home all the troops from Afghanistan before they're able to stand on their own, but I'd say we're closer to that day than we were before.
Of course we won't. We are now permanent occupiers...just as we are permanent occupiers of Iraq. And the cost in blood and money continue to rise. Had we not invaded over there, our national debt would be about 9% less than it is now.
And no, it doesn't make Obama a war lover. It just makes him Commander in Chief and means he's doing what he feels is necessary to keep this country (and others) safer.
He is a war lover....or at least a lover of those that promote unwinnable and completely unecessary wars.
May 6, 2011 4:08pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
May 6, 2011 4:25 PM
Footwedge;761526 wrote:Under Bush's GWOT, there were more terrorist attacks on US allies/interests than before 9-11. If that's keeping us safer, I'd love to here your logic on keeping us less safe.



I hardly think Clinton was a "confrontation avoider". Balkan Wars ring a bell?

How cleverly (not really) disingenuous of you.

How many attacks occurred on US SOIL after 9-11 again? Oh that's right -- NONE. I don't know about you, but I think that's an accomplishment to be proud of.
May 6, 2011 4:25pm
jhay78's avatar

jhay78

Senior Member

1,917 posts
May 6, 2011 4:26 PM
Footwedge;761526 wrote:Under Bush's GWOT, there were more terrorist attacks on US allies/interests than before 9-11. If that's keeping us safer, I'd love to here your logic on keeping us less safe.

I hardly think Clinton was a "confrontation avoider". Balkan Wars ring a bell?

I said "long-term goal". The problem had been festering for the better part of the 90's, garnering a few yawns and the lobbing of a few cruise missiles in response:
Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

In response, on August 20 the United States attacked targets in Afghanistan and Sudan with over 75 cruise missiles fired from Navy ships in the Arabian and Red seas. About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from warships in the Arabian Sea. Most struck six separate targets in a camp near Khost, Afghanistan. Simultaneously, about 20 cruise missiles were fired from U.S. ships in the Red Sea striking a factory in Khartoum, Sudan, which was suspected of producing components for making chemical weapons.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.
All of which were linked to OBL. I'm not laying all of this on the Clinton administration, nor absolving the Bush administration, but what some people call "war lover" others call "mess cleaner-upper".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/ns/nightly_news/t/osama-bin-laden-missed-opportunities/

One guy's informed opinion:
http://blogs.forbes.com/henrymiller/2011/05/05/bin-laden-lived-to-fight-another-day-thanks-to-bill-clinton/
May 6, 2011 4:26pm
cruiser_96's avatar

cruiser_96

Senior Member

7,536 posts
May 6, 2011 4:29 PM
Writerbuckeye;761539 wrote:How cleverly (not really) disingenuous of you.

How many attacks occurred on US SOIL after 9-11 again? Oh that's right -- NONE. I don't know about you, but I think that's an accomplishment to be proud of.

Please... no facts. I will not tolerate them.
May 6, 2011 4:29pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
May 6, 2011 4:32 PM
CenterBHSFan;761323 wrote:War lover?
Yup. We are a war loving nation. European countries used to love war too. Not so much since 1950 though. They've come to realize that wars should be avoided.
May 6, 2011 4:32pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
May 6, 2011 4:34 PM
Writerbuckeye;761539 wrote:How cleverly (not really) disingenuous of you.

How many attacks occurred on US SOIL after 9-11 again? Oh that's right -- NONE. I don't know about you, but I think that's an accomplishment to be proud of.
How many attacks on US soil attempted before 9-11? That would be 1. how many attacks attempterd post invasion? Several.
May 6, 2011 4:34pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
May 6, 2011 4:34 PM
cruiser_96;761545 wrote:Please... no facts. I will not tolerate them.
The 2 of you need to review what the facts are.
May 6, 2011 4:34pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
May 6, 2011 4:35 PM
Footwedge;761532 wrote:It didn't work. It made attacks fasr more prevelant. See my responce to Jhay. You people that still think occupying Iraq/Afganistan is somehow making us safer, need to read the published reasons behind Al Quada missions...and why they orchestrate these terrorist acts.
That's just to justify and appease Muslims that don't approve. They were attacking us before Iraq/Afhganistan. And if you want to really break it down, we could leave the Middle East and they'd still go after us for supporting Israel. At their core, this is really about gaining power from the very ignorant and very poor who cling to things like religion and promises of 72 virgins and for whom life takes on meaning believing they are carrying out Allah's will by fighting the evil West. Bin Laden is basically a more well-financed David Koresh with a larger base to draw from.

At the end of the day, the Democratic movement sweeping the Middle East is the best assault yet on radical Islam. And, at least in Iraq, I don't think you can ignore the seeds planted by regime change/"US imperialism".
May 6, 2011 4:35pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
May 6, 2011 4:40 PM
Here's just a partial list of attempted attacks on our mainland post Bush invasion to "keep us safer". And the Shoe Bomber isn't even listed. What a joke.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8660321.stm
May 6, 2011 4:40pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
May 6, 2011 4:44 PM
gut;761554 wrote:That's just to justify and appease Muslims that don't approve. They were attacking us before Iraq/Afhganistan. And if you want to really break it down, we could leave the Middle East and they'd still go after us for supporting Israel. At their core, this is really about gaining power from the very ignorant and very poor who cling to things like religion and promises of 72 virgins and for whom life takes on meaning believing they are carrying out Allah's will by fighting the evil West. Bin Laden is basically a more well-financed David Koresh with a larger base to draw from.

At the end of the day, the Democratic movement sweeping the Middle East is the best assault yet on radical Islam. And, at least in Iraq, I don't think you can ignore the seeds planted by regime change/"US imperialism".
So the actual quotes from bin Ladin himself for the reasons he attacked us was to appease the moderate Muslims? Surely you jest. Do you want a few links quoting bin Ladin? Or do you want to google it yourself and learn the truth?

Bin Lasdin's attacks were not pre-emptive...and they were not done to appease Allah. They were done in retaliatory fashion.

The 72 virgin thing is an eyeball roller.
May 6, 2011 4:44pm
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
May 6, 2011 4:48 PM
gut;761554 wrote: At the end of the day, the Democratic movement sweeping the Middle East is the best assault yet on radical Islam. And, at least in Iraq, I don't think you can ignore the seeds planted by regime change/"US imperialism".
Attacking Saddam Hussein was no assault at all in regards to an assault on radical Islam. Hussein was hated by the Muslim religious zealots for being so anti religious. Bin Ladin hated Hussein for this very reason.
May 6, 2011 4:48pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
May 6, 2011 5:39 PM
Footwedge;761526 wrote:Under Bush's GWOT, there were more terrorist attacks on US allies/interests than before 9-11. If that's keeping us safer, I'd love to here your logic on keeping us less safe.
Jhay said W's "goal" was to keep us safer, and then he admitted that W was misguided in that goal.
Footwedge;761560 wrote:Here's just a partial list of attempted attacks on our mainland post Bush invasion to "keep us safer". And the Shoe Bomber isn't even listed. What a joke.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8660321.stm
Curious. How many of those attacks were successful?
May 6, 2011 5:39pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
May 6, 2011 5:40 PM
Footwedge;761569 wrote:Attacking Saddam Hussein was no assault at all in regards to an assault on radical Islam. Hussein was hated by the Muslim religious zealots for being so anti religious. Bin Ladin hated Hussein for this very reason.
This is factual, and I certainly can't even try to disagree with you here.
May 6, 2011 5:40pm
Writerbuckeye's avatar

Writerbuckeye

Senior Member

4,745 posts
May 6, 2011 6:27 PM
Footwedge;761549 wrote:How many attacks on US soil attempted before 9-11? That would be 1. how many attacks attempterd post invasion? Several.

Irrelevant and you know it. Bin Laden (as noted already) has attacked the US in many different places prior to 9-11 and there is NO reason to believe he wouldn't continue doing so, even if we hadn't invaded.

I love pacifists. They think you can just leave psychotic people alone and they'll do the same. It doesn't work that way, as history has shown us over and over and over again.

Sometimes, war is necessary.

When someone comes into your country and kills more than 3,000 innocent people -- I'd say it's necessary.

And if you believe that there would not have been further attacks on the US if we hadn't responded, you're more delusional than I think you are; which would be VERY delusional.
May 6, 2011 6:27pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
May 6, 2011 7:31 PM
In case you can provide a strong argument that withdrawing and leaving the fragile governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to defend themselves against the Taliban and al Qaeda is really feasible, then we stay. To me, it is really that simple. If we leave, then what?
Do we go in if the government of Afghanistan falls to the radicals again? What about Pakistan, what if the Taliban grow even more and then that leads to instability in Pakistan, would we go in then? Or, if the U.S. leaves, how are we sure that Pakistan will not freak out and then out of no where attack India?
May 6, 2011 7:31pm
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
May 6, 2011 7:58 PM
How many terrorists do we create by just being in Afghanistan versus how many have we killed? I'd say our very presence in the region does more to create terrorists than we've ever killed.
May 6, 2011 7:58pm