Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View On bin Laden raid anniversary, Obama makes surprise visit to Afghanistan
2 years ago  ::  May 06, 2012 - 11:53PM #21
rabello
Posts: 21,698

May 6, 2012 -- 11:30PM, teilhard wrote:


IOW, you think that Candidate Obama OUGHT to have been the already fully experienced PRESIDENT Obama, such that he KNEW Things BEFORE he knew them, and certainly that NONE of US knows even yet ... ??? Tricky ...




I understand the need to make excuses, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist.  If you say you are going to close a prison while at the same time you believe that it is permissible to continue to hold some of those very prisoners indefinitely, without charge, trial or conviction, or even with a not-guilty verdict, then it stands to reason that you also have an idea of what you intend to do with those prisoners once you close the prison they're being held at, even if you decide you don't need to give full disclosure as Unitary Executive.


This exercise in logic applies to all of Obama's flip flops with regard to his war on terror.


Not "tricky" at all.  What is tricky is baiting and switching


I'll ask you again, please stop telling me what I think and mischaracterizing what I say, and just stick with what you think, especially since what you attribute to me with your mischaracterizing assumptions is what you think anyway.




Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 12:20AM #22
teilhard
Posts: 51,416

I think that "The War on 'Terror'" has turned out to be a VERY Hard/Tough "Nut to Crack" ...


May 6, 2012 -- 11:53PM, rabello wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 11:30PM, teilhard wrote:


IOW, you think that Candidate Obama OUGHT to have been the already fully experienced PRESIDENT Obama, such that he KNEW Things BEFORE he knew them, and certainly that NONE of US knows even yet ... ??? Tricky ...




I understand the need to make excuses, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist.  If you say you are going to close a prison while at the same time you believe that it is permissible to continue to hold some of those very prisoners indefinitely, without charge, trial or conviction, or even with a not-guilty verdict, then it stands to reason that you also have an idea of what you intend to do with those prisoners once you close the prison they're being held at, even if you decide you don't need to give full disclosure as Unitary Executive.


This exercise in logic applies to all of Obama's flip flops with regard to his war on terror.


Not "tricky" at all.  What is tricky is baiting and switching


I'll ask you again, please stop telling me what I think and mischaracterizing what I say, and just stick with what you think, especially since what you attribute to me with your mischaracterizing assumptions is what you think anyway.








Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 8:35AM #23
Nepenthe
Posts: 2,720

May 7, 2012 -- 12:20AM, teilhard wrote:

I think that "The War on 'Terror'" has turned out to be a VERY Hard/Tough "Nut to Crack" ...




It is not meant to be cracked.  Just as in the idiotic "war on drugs", it is meant to never end.  Every so often, without fail, we will learn of a new threat to our existence that must be met with military force or else they will kill our fathers and rape our daughters etc. etc.  It is fearmongering for the purpose of increasing governmental powers over the lives of the peoples on this planet and people like you are more than happy to go along with it. 

Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:31PM #24
vra
Posts: 6,403

May 6, 2012 -- 2:40PM, BDboy wrote:


>>>>>>> Joe Biden announced at "Meet the press" that, this agreement was in the making for last 20 months!!


His statement did not sound authentic to me. He wants us to think a politician will travel to Afghanistan on the anniversary of OBL's death JUST to sign some papers!!


Anyway Obama made the call and he gets to enjoy "Political points" out of it. I am sure Republicans would have shouted more if they were the brain behind OBL raid.


In this election year politicians will milk everything possible to get elected, we are just warming up folks.




Unlike Bush, Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time. 


Was his decision to go there political?  Of course it was.  Did he have the next election in mind?  Is the Pope Catholic?  However, it is not unusual for political leaders to travel to another country to sign something significant, and Obama did just that.  On top of that, it does also make life at least a bit more exciting for some of our troops there. 


A classic example of killing two birds with one stone.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 3:37PM #25
mecdukebec
Posts: 14,724

I am genuinely intrigued by political Wingoism in the U.S. that, from what I have gathered by asking, seems unaware that it was Karzai, and not Mr Obama, who set the 2014 date of withdrawal.  Mr Obama is not, really, like the former Current Occupant who consulted with the Lord, determined that Iraq had to be invaded, and announced that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were permanent, although that date was retractable, subject to prayer. 

*******

"Wesley told the early Methodists to gain all they could and save all they could so that they could give all they could. It means that I consider my money to belong to God and I see myself as one of the hungry people who needs to get fed with God’s money. If I really have put all my trust in Jesus Christ as savior and Lord, then nothing I have is really my own anymore."
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 4:27PM #26
rabello
Posts: 21,698

May 7, 2012 -- 3:31PM, vra wrote:


Unlike Bush, Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time. 


Was his decision to go there political?  Of course it was.  Did he have the next election in mind?  Is the Pope Catholic?  However, it is not unusual for political leaders to travel to another country to sign something significant, and Obama did just that.  On top of that, it does also make life at least a bit more exciting for some of our troops there. 


A classic example of killing two birds with one stone.





I realize that I belong to a small minority of critics (thank you, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Jeremy Scahill, and others like them!) and perhaps it is due mostly to the ingratiating way the msm announces anything that has to do with the so-called "War on Terror," but I am tired of waking up to the news that the president (Bush or Obama), or someone from their administrations, secretly travelled to the presumed "kill zone" overnight, to give a speech, or sign some paper that lacks the legitimacy of a treaty, as if it's some kind of monumentous occurence, even though it is we who are the military occupiers, and not the other way around.   How much of taxpayer's money, or political fans' contributions, do they spend on such blatant manipulation of "the people".  How much burden do such cosmetic undertakings place on the occupied?


I do hope that Obama and Joe Biden just stop bragging about the execution of bin Laden and the disrespect of his remains (wonder what happened to the bodies of the others who got collaterally executed?) because it is unseemly and diverts from what people need to be considering in the upcoming election, and makes them (Obama/Biden) a target.  Hopefully Axelrod will figure it out sooner rather than later, and Biden will learn to consider his words before uttering them.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 5:04PM #27
teilhard
Posts: 51,416

Calls to Mind the macho "Dubya" Aircraft Carrier Visit with the background Banner, "Mission Accomplished" (uh huh) ...


May 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, rabello wrote:


May 7, 2012 -- 3:31PM, vra wrote:


Unlike Bush, Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time. 


Was his decision to go there political?  Of course it was.  Did he have the next election in mind?  Is the Pope Catholic?  However, it is not unusual for political leaders to travel to another country to sign something significant, and Obama did just that.  On top of that, it does also make life at least a bit more exciting for some of our troops there. 


A classic example of killing two birds with one stone.





I realize that I belong to a small minority of critics (thank you, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Jeremy Scahill, and others like them!) and perhaps it is due mostly to the ingratiating way the msm announces anything that has to do with the so-called "War on Terror," but I am tired of waking up to the news that the president (Bush or Obama), or someone from their administrations, secretly travelled to the presumed "kill zone" overnight, to give a speech, or sign some paper that lacks the legitimacy of a treaty, as if it's some kind of monumentous occurence, even though it is we who are the military occupiers, and not the other way around.   How much of taxpayer's money, or political fans' contributions, do they spend on such blatant manipulation of "the people".  How much burden do such cosmetic undertakings place on the occupied?


I do hope that Obama and Joe Biden just stop bragging about the execution of bin Laden and the disrespect of his remains (wonder what happened to the bodies of the others who got collaterally executed?) because it is unseemly and diverts from what people need to be considering in the upcoming election, and makes them (Obama/Biden) a target.  Hopefully Axelrod will figure it out sooner rather than later, and Biden will learn to consider his words before uttering them.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 5:58PM #28
vra
Posts: 6,403

May 7, 2012 -- 4:27PM, rabello wrote:




I realize that I belong to a small minority of critics (thank you, Glenn Greenwald, Chris Hedges, Jeremy Scahill, and others like them!) and perhaps it is due mostly to the ingratiating way the msm announces anything that has to do with the so-called "War on Terror," but I am tired of waking up to the news that the president (Bush or Obama), or someone from their administrations, secretly travelled to the presumed "kill zone" overnight, to give a speech, or sign some paper that lacks the legitimacy of a treaty, as if it's some kind of monumentous occurence, even though it is we who are the military occupiers, and not the other way around.   How much of taxpayer's money, or political fans' contributions, do they spend on such blatant manipulation of "the people".  How much burden do such cosmetic undertakings place on the occupied?


I do hope that Obama and Joe Biden just stop bragging about the execution of bin Laden and the disrespect of his remains (wonder what happened to the bodies of the others who got collaterally executed?) because it is unseemly and diverts from what people need to be considering in the upcoming election, and makes them (Obama/Biden) a target.  Hopefully Axelrod will figure it out sooner rather than later, and Biden will learn to consider his words before uttering them.





I gotta keep this short.


You might remember in many posts on the subject that I had mentioned I was totally against going into Iraq and Afghanistan, although I did feel we had a right to use some military force in Afghanistan short of occupying the country.  On top of this, I've been saying for years now that we need to get our troops out as soon as conceivably possible but that such a decision does have some problems with it.


This new decision is a compromise of sorts that I reluctantly find satisfactory.  It actually will bring many of our troops home this year and many more next year, while at the same time leaving a residual force for some years to come, which I do believe is important, particularly if the Afghan government agreed, which it has.  Suddenly leaving and slamming the door shut as we rush out could present some very serious problems for Afghanistan, the region, and us as well.


As much as I'd love to see our troops come home today, I really don't think this would be the best move, and when I heard of the agreement, I was pleased, but only in the sense that the alternatives were worse. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 07, 2012 - 8:44PM #29
farragut
Posts: 4,042

I have to agree, vra. That appears to be the sensible, pragmatic, and humane strategy.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 08, 2012 - 4:19PM #30
BDboy
Posts: 5,831

May 7, 2012 -- 3:37PM, mecdukebec wrote:


I am genuinely intrigued by political Wingoism in the U.S. that, from what I have gathered by asking, seems unaware that it was Karzai, and not Mr Obama, who set the 2014 date of withdrawal.  Mr Obama is not, really, like the former Current Occupant who consulted with the Lord, determined that Iraq had to be invaded, and announced that the invasion and occupation of Iraq were permanent, although that date was retractable, subject to prayer. 




 


>>>>>> I'll be happier if they consulted with US administration. Becuase US has invested a lot in Afghanistan. At least they can work out a plan to make it a better place to live. Once the economy is more connected and people have more hope for a better quality of life, the fanatics and ignorants will lose their hold on population.


However having dumb drones and killing innocent people may not be the best way to take care of business. People of Afghanistan and Pakistan have been frustrated by drone attacks. How about old school spy networks and making smart attacks against true violence prone people?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook