A great man spoke last night about sending men into battle. I admire him and you should too.
Enough about Florida State football coach Bobby Bowden. His accomplishments are many.
I am disappointed he decided to retire.
Sadly enough, somebody less significant and accomplished spoke last night and did not offer to retire.
Barack Obama spoke to the nation last night.
Water is wet, the Sun rises in the East, and the President talks.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=4486A8EE-18FE-70B2-A8143B2A4DFA6780
To quote rock group Spinal Tap, “The more it stays the same, the less it changes.”
I did not listen to the speech. I was giving a speech in Silicon Valley. Given the size of the crowd, I must say how gratifying it is to know that so many people would rather listen to me than to the President.
His speeches are 45% platitudes, 30% bromides, 25% meanderings, and 5% nonsense. For those who point out that this adds up to 105%, this is Obama world. The numbers add up because he says so.
So let me break down my Afghanistan policy in a way that can be summed up in a few words, rather than in an endless string of speeches, each one less consequential than the previous one.
The answer can be summed up in one sentence.
All in or all out.
Anything else is unacceptable.
Mr. Obama and other liberals repeatedly pilloried George W. Bush, because again, water is wet and that is what they do. After all, he is a conservative who exists and breathes air. It is called Ideological Bigotry. Afghanistan was the good war, the ones liberals would fight if only we would get out of Iraq.
They didn’t mean it. The most sincere moment of honesty came when a liberal Congressman pointed out that the war was eating up money that could be spent on Mr. Obama’s domestic agenda. After all, why try and save America from third world genocidal lunatics when we can become a beacon to the world by giving Khalid Sheik Mohammed government sponsored healthcare?
President Obama is not being “thoughtful,” “nuanced,” “deliberative,” or any other code words that Vice President Cheney accurately referred to as “dithering,” and Sir Charles of Krauthammer compared to “Hamlet.”
He is not making tactical or strategic calculations. He is making political ones, while our soldiers fight and die.
He is dealing with the same conflict that has bedeviled past donkey presidents. A significant wing of his party wants to sing Kumbaya with KSM and make Smores. Everything is George W. Bush’s fault, and if we could just understand our enemies, they would one day come to love us.
Heck, if we could show Armageddonijad the beauty of Judaism he might have his son Bar-Mitzvahed.
Triangulating on domestic policy is what liberals do. Triangulating on foreign policy issues such as war can get us all blown to Kingdom Come.
Mr. Obama is worried about a liberal version of Pat Buchanan running a primary challenge in New Hampshire in 2012. He should be more concerned about our soldiers in 2009 who are risking their lives for a cause that he may or may not be committed to winning depending on what day of the week it is.
How do I know all of this? How do I know he is not being “deliberative?”
Because the plans have been on his desk for months. He had time to appear on Letterman and Leno, so i know he made time to read the war plans. There is no way such a dedicated public servant would go out and play without doing his homework first.
Like his last Democratic predecessor, he is trying to be all things to all people in a political party that even Will Rogers knew was disorganized.
People point to his predecessor as having low poll numbers. This is what happens when one makes tough, hard choices. They upset people, sometimes permanently. That is called leadership. It is also called adulthood.
America exists as a nation because the Union was willing to do anything and everything to win the Civil War. William Tecumseh Sherman did not take a poll or convene a focus group. He did not send the Secretary of State to sip tea with Robert E. Lee or anyone else in the Confederacy. He simply marched to the Sea, and burned everything to the ground. He made enemies. Those enemies surrendered. General Sherman got his marching orders from President Abraham Lincoln, who let him do whatever he needed to do to win.
President Obama compares himself to Lincoln. He is nothing like Lincoln. Lincoln is revered now, but he was hated then. Yet when his generals were insubordinate, he fired them and replaced them with people who would follow his orders.
Now Obama delays giving orders lest he offend some protesters on college campuses who might take time away from skipping class and protesting 100 issues to skip class and protest 101 issues, including him.
The President needs to do what is right. History will take care of the rest.
He should go “All in” in Afghanistan. That means a mass escalation…yes escalation…to whatever levels the military needs…to weed out every last genocidal Islamofascist zealot. We need to blow up every cave, raze every village, and slaughter every goat. Collateral damage should not ever be a consideration. Collateral damage can be minimized to zero when the enemy surrenders.
If the President is not willing to do this, then his other solution is to go “all out.” Take all the troops, and immediately bring them home. Just surrender. I don’t want one single soldier dying in vain for a lost cause, whether it be Detroit or Afghanistan.
I disagree with those on the far left that want to go all out, but at least their prescription, while complete lunacy, is an actual policy. Say what you will about leftists, but they don’t mince words. They are committed.
So am I. So should the President be.
The President should stop insulting our intelligence. He should stop pontificating. He should stop floating trial balloons that he punctures at the slightest hint of resistance from his irrelevant base.
Enough speeches. We need to either win or go home.
Our enemies have pushed all of their chips to the center of the table.
We are long past decision time.
It is time for action.
All in or all out, Mr. President.
eric
“President Obama compares himself to Lincoln. He is nothing like Lincoln.”
Yeah, liberals are even thinking about seeing if they can get his head up on Mt. Rushmore next to Lincoln. When he was asked what he thought of the idea he said it wouldnt work due to the size of his ears. We all know thats not the problem with anything from the shoulders up.
What kills me and what I’ll never understand is why we have to broadcast to the whole world what our every move is going to be.
Anything to get your face on TV I guess.
I mean really, what the hell ? We all knew a week ahead of time what the neander in chief was going to do so the only conclusion I can come to as to why he had to make this speech was to avail himself an opportunity to make as many excuses as possible and save what support hes got left.
Obama is a lot more like Lincoln than Republicans like Rick Perry, anyway!
I’m sorry, but the hypocrisy here is just too bitterly palpable. Where were you conervatives when Bush went into Iraq with a completely insufficient force for obviously political (and financial) reasons? Where were you guys for 7 years while Bush dithered around with Afghanistan? Where were you guys when the military reduced it’s recruiting goals in the middle of two wars, again for obvious political reasons, leaving us without nearly enough troops to go “all in” anywhere now? Heck, where were you guys when you created the Taliban and Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets and then left them to fill the political vacuum there once the war was done?
I just can’t take any of you seriously on this issue. In fact, I blame you for much of it.
Personally, I’ve recently come to the conclusion that we should just pack it up and get out of there. Bush already lost this war long before Obama came along. Karzai is a crooked joke. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are now in Pakistan, threatening the stability of a nuclear power. We’re playing Whack-A-Mole with a trillion-dollar-a-year military and accomplishing nothing. It’s time to change the entire strategy: fight terrorism with intelligence, diplomacy and law enforcement; and deal with rogue states by simply telling them, “Knock it off or you get carpet bombed.”
Obama, I believe is making a mistake, and it has nothing whatsoever about how he goes in but in fact that he’s even bothering to go in at all.
JMJ
“Personally, I’ve recently come to the conclusion that we should just pack it up and get out of there.”
ROTFLMAO, and you want to blame us for anything ?
“Where were you guys for 7 years while Bush dithered around with Afghanistan? ”
Uh, if that were true you might be making a point.
There was no dithering for the whole “7” years. Only that we didnt keep the momentum after we did put a serious dent in Al Queda and did chase the Taliban out.
The mistake was to not keep that present situation secure. But NOT as you imply were we “dithering” for 7 years.
“Where were you guys when the military reduced it’s recruiting goals in the middle of two wars, again for obvious political reasons, leaving us without nearly enough troops to go “all in” anywhere now?”
No, that wasnt the problem, stop lying.
The problem was right from the beginning when Rumsfeld decided to go in lean and on the cheap.
It was NOT in the middle as you so disengenuously claim.
“Heck, where were you guys when you created the Taliban and Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets and then left them to fill the political vacuum there once the war was done?”
First of all Al Queda id the creation of the Muslim brotherhood.
Second of all where was you guys at when the Taliban and Al Queda were bombing the Trade towers, the Cole and our embassies ?
” Bush already lost this war long before Obama came along.”
Right, not until Obama came along did we see the level of casualties weve been seeing.
But like everything hes touched so far it just gets worse and worse.
Oh, and by the way, you said its not a war, remember ?
“We’re playing Whack-A-Mole with a trillion-dollar-a-year military and accomplishing nothing.”
Boy, nice way to boost the troops moral and show em a little respect huh ?
Not one attack on American soil since 911 until Obama came into office and then we sufferd two in less than 10 months.
“fight terrorism with intelligence, diplomacy and law enforcement”
Terrorist dont recognize diplomacy, but you keep telling yourself that your kumbaya BS will work.
We cant enforce American law overseas.
You have to have intelligence in order to use it as a tool.
President Obama deserves credit (and our support) for increasing the number of troops by 30,000. I also believe that the war in Afghanistan is a moral duty as well a strategic necessity. Even if the counterinsurgency strategy is not forceful enough (the version in Iraq focused far more closely on security and cracking down on insurgents) and Obama is not properly committed to the fight, a flawed surge is better than nothing at all, which is far, far better than withdrawing. It would be immoral for the GOP to follow the example of those Republicans who changed their mind on the Balkans once Clinton supported intervention, or that of those Democrats who now demand withdrawal from Afghanistan.
However, I think the decision to announce the start of a withdrawal within eighteenth months is a disastrous decision which makes Bush’s decision to create the Iraq Study Group, which itself was responsible for the upturn in the Iraqi insurgency in 2006, look like a tactical masterstroke. I know that some are spinning that this was simply done to placate the left – but I believe that it is consistent with Obama’s extreme reluctance to, even now, fully embrace the war. Indeed, the decision is so bad that I would have preferred a much smaller troop increase and no withdrawal, than 30,000 troops and a deadline.
Anyone concerned about the future of British and American foreign policy should also be concerned about the role of McChrystal in this debate. Although one could argue that Obama appointed McChrystal in the hope that he would recommend a withdrawal, and so deserved to be railroaded into a surge, this could set a precedent that could haunt us in future – especially if the military figure in question turns out to be dovish. Similarly, the way in which senior figures in the British military have freely opined on Afghan strategy also undermines civilian supremacy.
So what is to be done? Obama may have decided that it was politically impossible at this juncture to withdraw. However, I am unfortunately convinced that he is hoping that in eighteen months things may be a lot easier. After all, his pragmatism may not spring from a hunger for power, but be part of a wider plan to quietly change the basic assumptions of American foreign policy. If Republicans start to opportunistically demand a withdrawal, then he will have “succeeded”. Therefore, those that believe in a free Afghanistan need to keep holding his feet to the fire and make it as politically difficult to withdraw in Summer 2011 as it is to withdraw now.
It also goes without saying that strategies that involve cutting deals with the Taliban, or even recognising that they have a political future, are incompatible with a free Afghanistan. At the other extreme, policies that tried to “raze every village, and slaughter every goat” are also completely antithetical to democracy promotion and Anglo-American values.
Tipster makes some very good points above. I think, however, that McChrystal is</em the reason Obama felt comfortable enough to make a timeline (and a “timeline,” afterall, is just another word for “goal”). I’m not a big fan of McChrystal as a political figure, but from what I’ve heard and read he’s apparently a very effective military man. Eagle, a pretty serious and ranking military man who posts here when he can, had nothing but praise for the general, and he seems to really know what he’s talking about.
Micky, I’m glad you at least admit this: “The problem was right from the beginning when Rumsfeld decided to go in (to Iraq) lean and on the cheap.”
Unfortunately, speaking of “cheap,” this was a cheap shot: “Right, not until Obama came along did we see the level of casualties weve been seeing.” That, as any honest and informed person well knows, is because Obama finally brought the fight to the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. Casualties shot up when the “surge” first began in Iraq as well, and once again, hypocritically, I didin’t hear any conservatives complaining then.
And yet another cheap shot: “Not one attack on American soil since 911 until Obama came into office and then we sufferd two in less than 10 months.” I don’t know what the second attack was, but Major Hasan was a growing threat long before Obama came along. And you’d think 9/11 was bad enough! To actually have the unmitigated gall to call avoiding another attack is astounding. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. You’d think that would be bad enough.
And then this silliness: “Terrorist dont recognize diplomacy…”
You really didn’t know what I was talking about, did you? I didn’t mean diplomacy with terrorists. I meant diplomacy with states that can help us fight terrorism. You can’t have diplomacy of terrorists anyway – they’re not states. That’s also, by the way, why you can’t go to war with terrorism. Armies fight armies, not organized crime.
Micky, you did not substantively address any of my points with the exception of your laudable condemnation of the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
JMJ
This morning, I had breakfast with four (shall I call them) acquaintences.
Of course the hot topic of discussion was Obama’s speech to the nation about Afghanistan.
One person who I had never met before, said he was so upset over
Obama’s continuing the war there, he turned his TV set to other channels, only to see Obama’s face on all. He ultimately turned off the set entirely.
He told us that he voted for Obama, the long waited for hope. That the people from the bottom up would now run the country.
He said we have gotten simply 8 more years of Bush policies..now that
Obama’s War is upon us full time. ( Some reporters say Obama’s War
started last January 2009). He hated Bush, and is more than a little upset and disappointed with Obama, who he believes is being controlled by
the Pentagon.
I told him and the others that I had seen through the empty and foolish
campaign issues and promises..and voted for McCain, even though I
was not totally in agreement with HIS POLICIES, including immigration (allowing amnestry for 11m illegals).
Then I asked the four persons to give me one example of what Obama
and his leftist Democractic administration have accomplished, just one?
No one gave me an answer.
Now, I am not any kind of genius, just your average middle aged Jew
who believes in G-d, gives charity, tries to obey some of the laws of Moses, (including the prohibition against same sex marriages), and tries
my utmost to keep kosher (when possible). I believe in the 10 commandments. I respect all other peoples, cept people who are trying to kill me and my friends and family or have done same. I admit to NOT liking them.
I favor the death penalty, for people like Mohammad (currently in
Gitmo-soon to be tried near friends in Lower Manhattan for
arranging the deaths of 3,000 fellow Americans with the hope for
100,000 more at that TIME.
I want to see Kuntar and Barghouti ( Palestinians) hung by a 12.00 hangman’s noose..and hate the idea that both may soon be free to kill again. I want to personallly watch the hanging of that Austrian or German
being tried in Germany for slaughtering over 22,000 innocent men, women and children. I have no feelings whatsoever of pity for the above.
I deplore liberal do-gooders and social workers..who would try to
appreciate the stresses and strains that the above were in at the time
of thOSE murders and thus allow them to continue their lives unaffected
by past crimes.
I pointed out to the gentleman that Obama campaigned on Afghanistan
being the “just war”, unlike Iraq, which was not a war of necessity (no war fought is a war of necessity unless the country faces it’s demise).
Neither our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan are wars of necessity..just
ones to contain a foe whose sole ambition is OUR demise.
One of the others at the breakfast noted that the Republicans were against the Afghanistan build-up. I corrected that inaccurate observation. The Republicans favor our defeating Islamic-fascism wherever it is. The Democrats favor benchmarks, a time-line ( to defeat ourselves) and
an exit strategy (before we know one).
Or as a reporter for the NYTimes wrote today, the Taliban can wait another
80 years for US to abandon Afghanistan. I agree.
I did suggest that all Americans should feel the pain however of this new
wrinkle. We should all pay an additional 2% surtax on our Federal taxes,
and consider bringing back the draft, starting with 18 year olds.
That shook them up.
I would pay another 2% gladly, considering I’m not placing myself in harm’s way. But their reaction was revealing.
I would not except the college students from the draft. It’s, for them,
a way out of having to pay higher tuition fees. They will get paid, plus
free room and board, won’t they, besides gleaning invaluable life’s experiences.
It was mentioned to me that the Karzai government is corrupt through
and through..therefore why send more troops, to reward him?
I answer, caus we are better off fighting them THERE, than here, again.
That’s why. I revealed that according to some websites, there are hundreds of Jihadist cells right here in the USA, most especially California.
They were surprised at that and skeptical.
Soooo, what to do? If I were Obama, I would send those 30,000 troops
as fast as possible, increase everyone’ tax 1-2%, threaten a draft if
we are needed in other hot spots (like Iran). I agree with John McCain,
we never should have given a date certain, or nearly certain, to bring home the boys (all the troops). That just emboldens our enemies.
Youd better believe that No. Korea, Venezuela and Iran are watching
everything we do and listening attentively to every word Obama
utters.
Iran today said it will enrich it’s uranium beyond what it has achieved to date, besides building 10 more nuke sites (for electricity purposes only).
In the other M.E. hotspot, Hezbollah is meeting with Hamas. They agreed
that 5m Muslims must be allowed to move to Israel itself. and that Lebanon’s decision not to disarm Hezbollah is a move in the right direction.
Of course we could all think like Ron Paul and remove ALL our troops and bases from the entire planet..back to mother US. Now that would
be something to behold.
Hey guys, why not try it, what do we have to lose?
I read in a local paper that in 1938, a German military leader sent
a private letter to England stating that if England attacked, the government
( then a coalition) in Germany would fall. Instead, England sent Chamberlain.
7 years later, and 70 million dead, the war ended.
There are other really important issues folks, on Obama’s leftist salad
plate, the most exciting same sex marriages.
I think he is for (and agains) the above..just cannot tell from
his “dithering”. Sound familar?
Anyway, New York State voted strongly AGAINST same sex marriages.
Gosh, what is happening to the 2nd most liberal give-away state in
the Union? I am frankly shocked.
The liberal, do-gooder, tax and spend (Federal money), 3 states in one
(the City, the suburbs, and upstate) State, voting (what will G-d think?)
against same sex? What is next for the Empire State, legalizing guns
in the Big Apple, G-d forbid.
Maybe it’s the Algonquin Indians or the 5 tribe influence, I don’t know?
What miracle has happened to the state with “Miracle of miracles”.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not against laws which allow buddies, friends, acquaintences, even closet lovers, to visit friends in hospitals.
If they can bare seeing their loved ones in the ICU, or CCU, on life support
with tubes everywhere, and IVS, and the stench of alcohol..that’s fine with me.
If buddies want to make contracts between themselves..like ownership
in the entirety (NY) of property, hey, whats wrong with that.
If a lover wants to make a decision about providing hospice or
medical treatment, (including end of life treatment), so what’s wrong,
as long as both agree beforehand.
But same sex marriages? Hell no.
Federal law folks, sometimes primes State laws. The bible (Judeo-Christian) primes man’s law sometimes. The Laws of Moses cannot
be dismissed., most especially the laws pertaining to sex, marriage,
and who sleeps with whom.
There are reasons for the above, like the continuation of the species,
get it, the continuation. G-d had a reason when he gave those laws
to Moses.
Now I understand some people don’t believe in G-d..or at least the G-d of the Jews and Christians. Some people believe in reincarnation. Okay,
when you come back as a frog, talk to me.
One Congressman from New York told another Congressman ( who is
gay and voted for same sex by saying, leave your bible behind when you vote), bring your BIBLE IN WITH YOU.
A person was heard saying that Hitler didn’t treat some minorities with
respect and dignity. Guess what, he murdered gays along with Jews and
gypsies. No discrimination there. So what’s the argument?
Just another interesting and fascinating day in loveable New York,
the biggest debtor state behind California that is.
“That, as any honest and informed person well knows, is because Obama finally brought the fight to the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. Casualties shot up when the “surge” first began in Iraq as well, and once again, hypocritically, I didin’t hear any conservatives complaining then.
Bull.
There were more casualties than ever because they were under manned you dingaling, thats why the call for re enforcements.
Now we will see additional casualties with this surge as there was no surge previously to blame casualties on as you so unwittingly claimed.
The plan to “bring the fight to the resurgents Taliban” was a plan left in place for him by the Bush administration that called for additional troops buddy.
“And yet another cheap shot: “Not one attack on American soil since 911 until Obama came into office and then we sufferd two in less than 10 months.” I don’t know what the second attack was, but Major Hasan was a growing threat long before Obama came along. And you’d think 9/11 was bad enough! To actually have the unmitigated gall to call avoiding another attack is astounding. 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. You’d think that would be bad enough.”
Whats cheap about the truth ?
Also, I guess since you’re so damn well informed like you’re always bragging you got carried away and forgot about the radical Muslims that bombed a recruitment center.
And really, give it already would you ?
yeah, 911 happened on Bushs watch but of all the attacks on America regardless of whos watch it was Bush was the first president with any balls to actually finally do something about it and did prevent any attacks since then. No other administration can make that claim.
PERIOD !!!
Carter let us be attacked, did nothing.
Clinton let us be attacked, numerous times,did hardly anything, bombed Bosnia instead.
Had Clinton, with guaranteed opportunities to kil Bin Laden done what he was supposed to there would of been no Al Queda to launch 911.
So please, if you want to maintain whatever dignity you have left stop running off this ridiculous “911 happened on Bushs watch” CRAP.
“And then this silliness: “Terrorist dont recognize diplomacy…”
You really didn’t know what I was talking about, did you? I didn’t mean diplomacy with terrorists. I meant diplomacy with states that can help us fight terrorism. You can’t have diplomacy of terrorists anyway – they’re not states. That’s also, by the way, why you can’t go to war with terrorism. Armies fight armies, not organized crime.
Micky, you did not substantively address any of my points with the exception of your laudable condemnation of the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
Right, you just tried to refute numerous points that I addressed, scroll up and try to count bozo.
Are you HIGH ?
I quoted and addressed everything in your first post !
I went right down the line buddy.
no argument left ?
thats alright, just make something up.
“That’s also, by the way, why you can’t go to war with terrorism. Armies fight armies, not organized crime.”
Oh, just because you say so ?
One can go to war with anything thyey like Jersey.
Then tell me how it is different gangs and other crime organizations go to war against each other ?
Then tell your buddies to stop trying to convict Bush of war crimes.
And you yourself had better stop calling it a war if you want to keep looking like one with brain.
“You really didn’t know what I was talking about, did you? I”
Of course I did. I’ve only heard the same dribble out of you about a hundred times now since you called terrorist unruly children.
It deserved as much attention as it got.
Organized criminalities do not wage war against countries.
They operate on the back of a rouge country by a government taken hostage.
“You can’t have diplomacy of terrorists ”
You should of told that to Carter, Obama and Clinton
“One person who I had never met before, said he was so upset over
Obama’s continuing the war there, he turned his TV set to other channels, only to see Obama’s face on all.”
Dan, you should tell your new aquaintance to tradein those old rabbit ears and get cable.
“Then I asked the four persons to give me one example of what Obama
and his leftist Democractic administration have accomplished, just one?
No one gave me an answer.”
I don’t believe you. Either you’re four aquaintances are brain-damaged, or they would have said:
1: Tax cuts and credits for 95% of Americans, to help with school, stimulate the economy, keep more pay in the pockets of workers, amounting to 282 billion dollars, more than Bush ever cut in one year.
2: Put 19 bil of the stimulus money to install a new universal healthcare IT system that could save thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and millions of hours of wasteful paperwork.
3: Approved thousands of highway projects to overhaul our aging transportation infrastructure, something the Bush administration completely neglected.
4: Added two million acres to our protected lands.
5: Stopped the recession and began the road to recovery, averting a possible depression.
And on and on. has he done enough for me? No. has he don;e what you guys want? Of course not. Has he accomplished nothing? You’d have to live under a rock to beieve that stupidity.
Micky,
I won’t even get into the Afghan/casualty argument with you because you know I’m right, you know Bush is to blame, but you just can’t admit it. So whatever.
We were never attacked under Carter. Not in any way like 9/11, anyway. It was with Bush as president that we sufffered the worst terrorist attack in US history. I wouldn’t brag about that if I were you. And if you really think that if Clinton had killed OBL that 98/11 wouldn’t have appened then you don’t know anything whatsoever about terrorism, or 9/11, or modern history. The terrorists of 9/11 wanted war, they wanted Bush’s reaction, they wanted people like you to overreact. You gave them everything they wanted.
Carter, Obama and Clinton have never held diplomacy with terrorists. Are you lying or just don’t know any better?
JMJ
Tipster you over analyze and “antithetical to democracy promotion and anglo-american values”. How naive…
You know nothing about defeating the enemy by killing. Killing everything that moves, leave not one alive. If you don’t the enemy you left alive today will kill you tomorrow. To defeat terrorists one must use the same tactics the terrorists use only worse. Terrorists will stop being terrorists when they fear you. Kill their goats? You bet, kill them and eat them and let the terrorists see you do it.
Jers, Carter (Yasser Arafat), Obama (begging Ahmadinejad to talk), Clinton (well he had a terrorist as veep) skirts were more his forte.
Toma
Toma, are you suggesting genocide? Can you tell the difference between a terrorist and a fish monger in Karachi? Yeah, right.
Carter never negiotiated with Yasser Arafat when he was president. Obama never begged Ahmadinejad for anything. Clinton never negotiated with terrorists and if anything it was his administration that warned the Bush administration about OBL.
You are soooooooooooooo unrealistic sometimes, Toma.
JMJ
” won’t even get into the Afghan/casualty argument with you because you know I’m right, you know Bush is to blame, but you just can’t admit it. So whatever.”
Yeah, like the typical little snotty valley girl that hs no clue “Whatever”
Bush is hardly to blame for Obama sitting on his thumbs when if the re enforcements got there sooner many of our guys would still be alive.
THIS IS OBAMAS WAR NOW ! HE OWNS IT ! GROW UP AND BUY A CALENDAR !!
“We were never attacked under Carter. Not in any way like 9/11, ”
Thats besides the point. His linp wristed diplomacy caused many of the problems we have today.
” It was with Bush as president that we sufffered the worst terrorist attack in US history. I wouldn’t brag about that if I were you. And if you really think that if Clinton had killed OBL that 98/11 wouldn’t have appened then you don’t know anything whatsoever about terrorism,”
Right, here we go with the snotty elitest crap again.
I never denied the attack happened on Bush watch. But the fact remains that he actually did something about the problem where liberals only made it worse or did nothing.
“they wanted Bush’s reaction, they wanted people like you to overreact. You gave them everything they wanted.”
Yeah right, they wanted Bushs reaction when they bombed the Cole and the Towers the first time.
They waged war on us long before Bush was even thiught.
Anyone who doesnt know these basics is the idiot who knows nothing about terrorism
Carter, Obama and Clinton have never held diplomacy with terrorists. Are you lying or just don’t know any better?
Arafat never came to camp David ?
Obama hasnt said he’ll sit down with them unconditionally ?
Carter didnt just meet with HAMAS ? (violating the Logan act)
You’re either lying thru your teeth AGAIN or just plain stoooooooooopid.
Nice try, prove me wrong or be quite and just save what image as a thinking human you have left
JMJ;
“are you suggesting genocide? ”
JMJ;
” It’s time to change the entire strategy: fight terrorism with intelligence, diplomacy and law enforcement; and deal with rogue states by simply telling them, “Knock it off or you get carpet bombed.”
Yeah, carpet bombing is real discriminate, isnt it ?
I’m sure they can make bombs that will only kill terrorists and leave the fishmongers unscathed.
Hypocrite
Well, you got me on that one, Micky! But there’s still a big difference between threathing to bomb a particular country’s infrastructure/military/government/factories and actually setting about murdering a billion Muslims. Also, Toma confers the mistaken assumption that Iraqis and Afghanis are terrorists who attacked us. They’re not. If we were to apply Toma’s logic, we’d have to invade Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. That ain’t gonna happen. So again, he’s being completely unrealistic. But you’re point is still taken.
JMJ
“If we were to apply Toma’s logic, we’d have to invade Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Pakistan, etc. That ain’t gonna happen”
Nah, I think you’re being pretty arrogant in thinking you can think like him.
“Toma confers the mistaken assumption that Iraqis and Afghanis are terrorists who attacked us. ”
Really ? Where’d you pull that out from ? I didnt see anything in his post that made the whole middle east inclusive.
We need to start kicking a$$ and exit this stage in our history where were searching for some self gratifying pie in the sky politically correct way to fight wars.
Wars have been averted by diplomacy but history proves that wars are ended with force
We are ay war with people who waged war on us. Not a crime campaign.
They do not wish to transform of corrupt a country to its own benefit such the crimes syndicates you say they are. They want to eliminate our country.
A good criminal would never eliminate the source of its prosperity. Terrorists want nothing of us to be left.
Even when one criminal element wants to eliminate the other they call it war.
Gang wars, turf wars etc…
get it ?
We are at war and need to stop acting like community organizers trying to rid the town of the bad guys who said they are at war with us. The prupose of war and crime are two completely different purposes.
Is it criminal for one country to try and take anothers turf ? Yeah, but its still called war and treated as such in the international laws.
Is genocide a crime ? Yeah, against humanity. But genocide is always the result of a war. It then becomes a war crime.
Is Bush a war criminal ?
Only if you believe its a war hes fighting and fighting against.
As long as this threat has prevailed the means to deal with it so far have failed. Taking 60 years to accomplish nothing with the same methods should be enough for a rational person to figure that out.
Only the insane as you say will keep revisiting the same failed mistakes of the past in some self centered narcissistic vision that what never worked for many many greater minds than theres can work for them.
Theres always some generation that comes along thinking they can make what never worked before or is clearly failing work for them if they just tweak this and that. As long as the basic foundation is still there it wont succeed. Give it a different name and hope folks wont notice