Is Obama a terrorist?

[Warren Dew]

I'm giving Obama some credit for the stupid stuff that he could have done, but didn't.
.

Like putting three times as many troops in Afghanistan as Bush did? Oh wait, Obama did that.

[mistermack]

I'm giving Obama some credit for the stupid stuff that he could have done, but didn't.
.

Like putting three times as many troops in Afghanistan as Bush did? Oh wait, Obama did that.

I can't think what else would help you get the point.
Bush went in. Obama's job is to somehow make the best of that. Or minimise the damage.
Perhaps you'd prefer the US to flee Afghanistan in terror, like Vietnam?
Any US president would have the same dilemma.
Creep out, or fight it out.

What they will end up doing, is to creep out, with their pants on fire, but claim a victory. Just like Vietnam.
If only Bush had had the brains to do nothing.
.

[FBM]

And, he's the one who escalated the war into Pakistan,

Uhm. You mean that place where Bin Laden actually was?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =POL&s=TOP

There are more than 200 U.S. military personnel in Pakistan serving mostly as trainers as part of a long-running effort to counter al-Qaida and Islamist militants.

Sounds like the mildest "escalation" I've ever heard of.

...started bombing people in Libya,

Just following France's lead, along with the rest of NATO.

A French plane fired the first shots against Libyan government targets at 1645 GMT on Saturday, destroying a number of military vehicles, according to a military spokesman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

... and started a new war in Yemen.

I thought Yemeni rebels did that. I didn't even know we'd committed troops.

Obama: No US troops to Yemen

http://www.criticalthreats.org/yemen/ye ... ch-23-2011

It's just funny how people attribute near omnipotence to Bush, but Obama is just a prisoner in the white house with little to no ability to stop or change anything....

Refraining from starting unnecessary shit is a big help, IMO. Starting necessary shit isn't a problem.

Btw, I'm not an Obama fan or detractor. He's just there, and he'll be replaced sooner or later by another politician who will look after his/her own career as first priority and think about helping others out primarily as a means to do so.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well he hasn't outlawed torture or extraordinary rendition, or closed down Guantanamo or stopped the illegal wiretapping bullshit. I'd say his record speaks quite well for itself.

I've got no doubt that Bush and his government were terrorists, but he's not the first US presidential terrorist. They've got a long line of them going back to at least Nixon.

Well, like I said, I would judge Obama on his own projects, not on how he dealt with George Bush's shit.

When his own administration adopts those same policies, they become his administration's policies, not the previous one's.

And he is extremely constrained by Congress, and by having to get re-elected. You can't pretend these things don't exist.

George Bush was also constrained by the need to get reelected. For some reason that's a justification when it comes to Obama, but not when it comes to Bush.

Moreover, Obama had a Democratic Congress - his own party, for the first nearly 2 years of his administration, and a strong mandate from the people for "change," right? Why in the world would it be hard to eliminate rendition or enhanced interrogation techniques, and why would Guantanamo Bay still be open?

And, the President could close Guantanamo Bay without an act of Congress, and he could bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan (and Pakistan, Yemen and Libya), among other places, without an act of Congress. It's his choice to leave them there. I could certainly respect a responsible withdrawal policy that didn't just up-and-leave too quickly. But, it's 2 1/2 years now since he was inaugurated. His administration's policies have to at some point become his, and not Bush's. If a President is powerless to change the previous administration's policies, then he ought not be President, IMHO.

There are political deathtraps built into Guantanamo Bay etc. These were left behind by the Bush Administration. Politically, they are lose-lose situations, and he's quietly managing to lose the minimum.

What death traps? The death traps that his view on Guantanamo Bay was not shared by most people?

That's my point. If you judge his administration now, by how they handle Bush's leftovers, you're being politically naive.
And an intelligent analysis would give credit for bad shit that someone HASN'T done.

Like expand the Afghan war into Pakistan, start a new war in Yemen, and participate in the Libyan "war for oil?" He had to do those things out of political necessity because of Bush? Once again, any man that can be forced by his predecessor to do such things ought not be President.

If George Bush had done nothing more often, his presidency would have been FAR better.
If he'd done nothing about Israel, nothing about Iraq, and nothing about Afghanistan, the whole world would be a better place, America would be less hated, more respected, and a lot richer.

Nothing the US can do will make you blokes "respect" it.

And, if you can honestly say that the world would be a better place with the Taliban in power in Afghanistan, still harboring an Al Qaeta that the US would be accused of being "powerless to eliminate," then I have to respectfully disagree. If the US hadn't gone in to root out those who attacked our citzenry and our government on our own soil, the consensus would have been that the US was the paper tiger that bin Laden told his supporters we were.

And hundreds of thousands of people would be a lot less dead.

Hundreds of thousands of people would still be dead, continuing to die at the hands of the Al Qaeta, Taliban and Hussein-Iraq forces.

I'm giving Obama some credit for the stupid stuff that he could have done, but didn't.
.

What more in terms of incursions into foreign countries do you think he might have done, but didn't? Three countries is not a lot? Pakistan deserves to be bombed, but Afghanistan not? Yemen deserves to be bombed, but Afghanistan not? Come on man, you can't be serious.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, he's the one who escalated the war into Pakistan,

Uhm. You mean that place where Bin Laden actually was?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =POL&s=TOP

He was in Afghanistan in 2001, yet that supposedly was an improper place for Bush to go. So, ought we attack Al Qaeta in Pakistan or not? If so, why was it improper to attack them in Afghanistan. They had a far greater and more extensive presence in Afghanistan until the US and the allied forces got there and killed them and captured them.

There are more than 200 U.S. military personnel in Pakistan serving mostly as trainers as part of a long-running effort to counter al-Qaida and Islamist militants.

Sounds like the mildest "escalation" I've ever heard of.

How many ground troops were in Afghanistan originally? And, Obama advocated beefing up the troops in Afghanistan - increasing their numbers.

So, Bush was wrong to go into Afghanistan - but Obama is right to go into Pakistan? You people can't seriously argue that out of anything other than personal bias.

...started bombing people in Libya,

Just following France's lead, along with the rest of NATO.

So, if France does it, it's right? If the "rest of NATO" does it, it's right? What a joke of an argument.

A French plane fired the first shots against Libyan government targets at 1645 GMT on Saturday, destroying a number of military vehicles, according to a military spokesman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

So, wouldn't France be a war criminal nation, waging a war for oil when there was no "imminent threat?"

... and started a new war in Yemen.

I thought Yemeni rebels did that. I didn't even know we'd committed troops.

That does seem to be the distinction some folks like to make. It's o.k. to bomb whoever you want from the air. Another joke of an argument. An air war is not less of a war, and it's no less an incursion on State sovereignty than a ground war. And, the people bombed are no less dead. And there are covert troops in Yemen.

Obama: No US troops to Yemen

http://www.criticalthreats.org/yemen/ye ... ch-23-2011

It's just funny how people attribute near omnipotence to Bush, but Obama is just a prisoner in the white house with little to no ability to stop or change anything....

Refraining from starting unnecessary shit is a big help, IMO. Starting necessary shit isn't a problem.

LOL! Pakistan, Yemen and Libya are "necessary?" How so? Where's the "imminent threat?"

[pErvinalia]

That's my point. If you judge his administration now, by how they handle Bush's leftovers, you're being politically naive.
And an intelligent analysis would give credit for bad shit that someone HASN'T done.

Like expand the Afghan war into Pakistan, start a new war in Yemen, and participate in the Libyan "war for oil?"

What's this Yemen stuff you keep bringing up? What's going on there?

Pakistan? America has been bombing and operating inside Pakistan for the whole of this war. I agree going in there without their permission to shoot up some Afganis, Saudis and (presumably) some Pakistanis is a bit "fuck you"-ish, but it's hardly 'expanding the war into Pakistan' over what they've been doing for the last 10 odd years.

Libya? Well at least it was backed by the UN. I'm more willing to forgive America's misadventures when it has the backing of the UN.

If George Bush had done nothing more often, his presidency would have been FAR better.
If he'd done nothing about Israel, nothing about Iraq, and nothing about Afghanistan, the whole world would be a better place, America would be less hated, more respected, and a lot richer.

Nothing the US can do will make you blokes "respect" it.

Absolutely not true, and shows how out of touch some people are with the world.

And hundreds of thousands of people would be a lot less dead.

Hundreds of thousands of people would still be dead, continuing to die at the hands of the Al Qaeta, Taliban and Hussein-Iraq forces.

That's bullshit, and you know it.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's my point. If you judge his administration now, by how they handle Bush's leftovers, you're being politically naive.
And an intelligent analysis would give credit for bad shit that someone HASN'T done.

Like expand the Afghan war into Pakistan, start a new war in Yemen, and participate in the Libyan "war for oil?"

What's this Yemen stuff you keep bringing up? What's going on there?

Bombing and covert operations under the rubric of the "war on terrorism."

Pakistan? America has been bombing and operating inside Pakistan for the whole of this war. I agree going in there without their permission to shoot up some Afganis, Saudis and (presumably) some Pakistanis is a bit "fuck you"-ish, but it's hardly 'expanding the war into Pakistan' over what they've been doing for the last 10 odd years.

Obama greatly expanded Pakistan operations, which were very muted under Bush. In fact, Obama ran for election on the policy of expanding Pakistan and sending in ground forces if needed. John McCain took the opposite position.

Libya? Well at least it was backed by the UN.

No "imminent threat." I thought we needed an "imminent threat?" Guess not.

I'm more willing to forgive America's misadventures when it has the backing of the UN.

How very kind of you.

If George Bush had done nothing more often, his presidency would have been FAR better.
If he'd done nothing about Israel, nothing about Iraq, and nothing about Afghanistan, the whole world would be a better place, America would be less hated, more respected, and a lot richer.

Nothing the US can do will make you blokes "respect" it.

Absolutely not true, and shows how out of touch some people are with the world.

It shows how out of touch you are.

And hundreds of thousands of people would be a lot less dead.

Hundreds of thousands of people would still be dead, continuing to die at the hands of the Al Qaeta, Taliban and Hussein-Iraq forces.

That's bullshit, and you know it.

You just don't know what you're talking about, and wear your blinders to anything that doesn't fit with your own pet notions.

[FBM]

And, he's the one who escalated the war into Pakistan,

Uhm. You mean that place where Bin Laden actually was?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =POL&s=TOP

He was in Afghanistan in 2001, yet that supposedly was an improper place for Bush to go. So, ought we attack Al Qaeta in Pakistan or not? If so, why was it improper to attack them in Afghanistan. They had a far greater and more extensive presence in Afghanistan until the US and the allied forces got there and killed them and captured them.

You don't know where he was in 2001, and neither do I. The mistake made in Afghanistan was in trying to turn the whole country into a Little America, which is pretty much what has been US foreign policy for decades now.

There are more than 200 U.S. military personnel in Pakistan serving mostly as trainers as part of a long-running effort to counter al-Qaida and Islamist militants.

Sounds like the mildest "escalation" I've ever heard of.

How many ground troops were in Afghanistan originally? And, Obama advocated beefing up the troops in Afghanistan - increasing their numbers.

How many US troops are in Afghanistan now compared to when Obama was elected?

So, Bush was wrong to go into Afghanistan - but Obama is right to go into Pakistan? You people can't seriously argue that out of anything other than personal bias.

As I stated earlier, I'm neither an Obama fan or detractor. He's just there. He sent a small force into Pakistan to assassinate Bin Laden, as opposed to his predecessor's approach of occupying the whole country. Seems pretty efficient, by comparison, no?

...started bombing people in Libya,

Just following France's lead, along with the rest of NATO.

So, if France does it, it's right? If the "rest of NATO" does it, it's right? What a joke of an argument.

No, I was pointing out that the US did not initiate the action in Libya, as you had erroneously implied.

A French plane fired the first shots against Libyan government targets at 1645 GMT on Saturday, destroying a number of military vehicles, according to a military spokesman.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12796972

So, wouldn't France be a war criminal nation, waging a war for oil when there was no "imminent threat?"

NATO, not just France, not just the US, not just Britian, voted to step in on humanitarian grounds. Kadafi was/is slaughering anyone who voiced opposition to his rule. You like the idea of killing people for disagreeing and voicing their opinions? You agree with that? Seriously? Nationality be damned, it's just a fiction anyway, as a human being you think it's OK for a military dictator to kill whomever he decides is a threat? Is that what you're defending here? If I were you, I'd apply for citizenship to North Korea. They (the leadership) seem to have it pretty easy right now. Give it a go, eh? Seems that you'd feel right at home there.

Shit, if Obama, as Commander-in-Chief, sent the troops out to kill all Republican voters, you'd be ever so grateful to France or anyone else who stepped in to put a halt to it. Tell me I'm wrong.

... and started a new war in Yemen.

I thought Yemeni rebels did that. I didn't even know we'd committed troops.

That does seem to be the distinction some folks like to make. It's o.k. to bomb whoever you want from the air. Another joke of an argument. An air war is not less of a war, and it's no less an incursion on State sovereignty than a ground war. And, the people bombed are no less dead. And there are covert troops in Yemen.

You said "started". The US didn't start anything there. Need a timeline of events? They're easy to find. I'll post one for you if you can't.

Obama: No US troops to Yemen

http://www.criticalthreats.org/yemen/ye ... ch-23-2011

It's just funny how people attribute near omnipotence to Bush, but Obama is just a prisoner in the white house with little to no ability to stop or change anything....

Refraining from starting unnecessary shit is a big help, IMO. Starting necessary shit isn't a problem.

LOL! Pakistan, Yemen and Libya are "necessary?" How so? Where's the "imminent threat?"

[/quote]

Pakistan: Bin Laden was still the leader of his merry band of terrorists who killed 3,000 people on 9/11 and many others elsewhere. A small team went in, killed the fuckwad, and left. Pakistan is in cahoots with al Qaeda, or are at least too scared of them to do anyting, so yeah, necessary. I wish all wars were carried out so quickly and efficiently.

Yemen: Again, the US didn't initiate, the rebels did. However, Al Qaeda combatants are clustered there. If you want to get the enemy, you gotta go where the enemies are. The US doesn't even like the Yemeni gov't, but they're willing to risk some political clout in order to get to Al Qaeda. Small price to pay, if you want to get rid of the people who are repeatedly attacking your country and its citizens. Yeah, necessary and wise. Better in Yemen than in Manhattan, no?

Libya: Case closed. This is not a unilateral US action. Obama has been reluctant from day one.


Player A: Spin to the right. Player B: Spin to the left. Aren't there any new games around?

[pErvinalia]

Libya? Well at least it was backed by the UN.

No "imminent threat." I thought we needed an "imminent threat?" Guess not.

I agree what's transpired in Libya is a bit suspect, but it's not necessarily the US's fault.

I'm more willing to forgive America's misadventures when it has the backing of the UN.

How very kind of you.

Yes. But I really mean that. I know the UN isn't the most perfect organisation in the world, but it's at least a start and certainly better than the US going rogue.

If George Bush had done nothing more often, his presidency would have been FAR better.
If he'd done nothing about Israel, nothing about Iraq, and nothing about Afghanistan, the whole world would be a better place, America would be less hated, more respected, and a lot richer.

Nothing the US can do will make you blokes "respect" it.

Absolutely not true, and shows how out of touch some people are with the world.

It shows how out of touch you are.

WTF?!? I can't be "out of touch" as I am one of those foreigners who despises America's foreign policy.

And hundreds of thousands of people would be a lot less dead.

Hundreds of thousands of people would still be dead, continuing to die at the hands of the Al Qaeta, Taliban and Hussein-Iraq forces.

That's bullshit, and you know it.

You just don't know what you're talking about...

Yeah? Well your mother's an astronaut!

[pErvinalia]

And, he's the one who escalated the war into Pakistan,

Uhm. You mean that place where Bin Laden actually was?

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =POL&s=TOP

He was in Afghanistan in 2001, yet that supposedly was an improper place for Bush to go. So, ought we attack Al Qaeta in Pakistan or not? If so, why was it improper to attack them in Afghanistan. They had a far greater and more extensive presence in Afghanistan until the US and the allied forces got there and killed them and captured them.

You don't know where he was in 2001, and neither do I. The mistake made in Afghanistan was in trying to turn the whole country into a Little America, which is pretty much what has been US foreign policy for decades now.

The main mistake made in Afghanistan was Iraq.

[FBM]

The main mistake made in Afghanistan was Iraq.

[Coito ergo sum]

Libya? Well at least it was backed by the UN.

No "imminent threat." I thought we needed an "imminent threat?" Guess not.

I agree what's transpired in Libya is a bit suspect, but it's not necessarily the US's fault.

If Obama chose to participate in it, then to the extent of that participation it is his fault, not Bush's fault.

I'm more willing to forgive America's misadventures when it has the backing of the UN.

How very kind of you.

Yes. But I really mean that. I know the UN isn't the most perfect organisation in the world, but it's at least a start and certainly better than the US going rogue.

Apparently, US going rogue is only bad if Bush does it. If Obama does it in Pakistan and Yemen, it's fine.

I'm deleting the ad hominem portion.

[FBM]

You call it "going rogue", others see it as doing it the way it should have been done the first time. Small teams directed towards a specific target instead of national occupation and all the Vietnam-era shit that Bush should have given an eye to, had he been educamated up reel gud. And Obama is working with the current administration in Yemen, not overthrowing it on ideological/religious justifications.

[FBM]

And I'd just like to point out that the cheese/bacon vote rules.

[normal]

And I'd just like to point out that the cheese/bacon vote rules.

It's actually the most intelligent choice.