Is Obama a terrorist?

[FBM]

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

It's actually the most intelligent choice.

If you weren't a man, I'd let you give me a blowjob and cook me some cheese/bacon for breakfast.

[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.

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.

Only if you ignore the overwhelming evidence that bin Laden was in Afghanistan in 2001 can you say that.

Moreover, the assertion that the US has been trying to turn Afghanistan into a little America for decades now requires support/citation.

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?

About double.

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?

You think that's all he did in Pakistan? That one mission?

Obama's (and most of the left's) criticism of Bush is that he did not send enough troops to Afghanistan. We had only sent a few thousand troops in initially under Bush.

...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.

I didn't imply it. I merely don't give Obama a pass for being a lemming.

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,

So what? Was there or was there not an "imminent threat?" If 10 countries invade without imminent threat being present, isn't it a war crime? And, the US had 34 countries with it in 2003 when going into Iraq. So, it would be o.k. if it was a few NATO countries, but not o.k. if it was a different alliance? NATO is just an alliance - it's not a legal body.

Moreover - the NATO alliance agreements don't allow for a war of choice - it's for common defense. So, again - no imminent threat?

voted to step in on humanitarian grounds.

And, people swallow this shit? Come on. There was no humanitarian crisis! If humanitarian issues were the spur, then why didn't we go into Syria? Why not Darfur? In those places there were ACTUAL humanitarian crises occurring. In Libya, the reason was - remember - "we think Qadafi might start shooting civilians."

Kadafi was/is slaughering anyone who voiced opposition to his rule.

That was not the case when the intervention started. It was all speculative. Nothing had happened yet. The only people killed were the armed resistance.

You like the idea of killing people for disagreeing and voicing their opinions? You agree with that? Seriously?

No - but, that wasn't happening. Moreover - humanitarian reasons were NOT enough in 2003, remember? We needed an "imminent threat" and the fact that Hussein had murder thousands of his own people, had violated the Cease Fire Accords, had rape as a policy of government, engaged in torture and mass murder on a grand scale, and had secret police capture, torture and kill anyone who opposed him, was NOT ENOUGH to warrant intervention because there were many other countries around the world with tyrannical dictators, etc.

If you think wars are o.k. if they are against tyrants who kill people fro disagreeing and voicing their opinions, then you should have been four square in favor of the Iraq War.

Now, of course, you think it's perfectly legitimate to invade and bomb another country under the rubric of humanitarianism, even if there is no imminent threat - not even ANY threat - not even a non-imminent one.

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?

No, I don't. That's what I said about Iraq, though, and everyone in your camp told me that there were plenty of dictators around the world, so to say that dictators are killing there people is not enough to justify war. We needed an imminent threat, and since there wasn't one from Iraq, the humanitarian issues - demonstrable and FAR GREATER THAN IN LIBYA - were not enough to justify the war.

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.

Nope - I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of people supporting Obama's adventures while opposing Bush's.

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.

Qadafi hadn't done that. It was stated, without evidence, that he might fire on civilians. He said he wouldn't, and he hasn't. NATO has killed more civilians in Libya than Qadafi has. Just an example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13611132

... 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.

Someone attacked the US in Yemen? Yes, show me that timeline.

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?"

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.[/quote]

That wasn't a war, it was a raid, and you have to be ignorant of what's going on Pakistan to think that that's all that Obama has done there.

Yemen: Again, the US didn't initiate, the rebels did.

...I'll wait for your reference to the Yemeni rebel attack on the United States....

However, Al Qaeda combatants are clustered there.

They were clustered in Afghanistan too, in 2001. That, of course, was, according to the Left, an illegal war. And, remember when the war on terrorism was just an invented thing, created by the Bush administration to justify war for oil. I love how now it's real, and that pointing out where Al Qaeta cells and clusters are is not long "fear mongering" - it's justified.

If you want to get the enemy, you gotta go where the enemies are.

That was, of course, one of the reasons why we went into Afghanistan, and one of the reasons we also took Iraq (to serve as a lightening rod, and to take a forward position into the region - 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?

I think so, sure. But, I also don't hypocritically oppose the war in Afghanistan.

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

Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were unilateral US actions. They were US led, yes. Apparently, that's the problem. US leading the way.

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

I wish there were. I can't get an Obama supporter to address anything he does objectively. It's basically - Obama=good, therefore what he does we accept without question - wars are not for oil, war on terrorism is real, and any allegation that al qaeta is here or there is accepted as true uncritically. All such thing under his predecessor were for improper motives, faked, fearmongering and there was no such thing as a war on terrorism.

[Ian]

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

It's actually the most intelligent choice.

Mmmmm... bacon...

[Animavore]

Obvious trap question is obvious.

I'm actually surprised people took the bait.

[FBM]

Obvious trap question is obvious.

I'm actually surprised people took the bait.

But it smelled of bacon.

[mistermack]

I think Obama is doing the minimum abroad that he can get away with.
The surge in Afghanistan was always tactically a good move. They were always primed and ready to sort out any major unforeseen events in Iraq. And he can claim that he’s reducing the numbers, come the next election.

As far as Libya is concerned it would have been political suicide not to aid the revolt, if there really were massacres when it was put down by Gadaffi. Also, for the US to say no, when France and other countries were urging yes, would have been ridiculous. How could the US call on other countries for support after that?
And the US has historical issues with Gadaffi, as does Britain. Any president would have done at least as much as Obama.

Bearing in mind the insurrection is genuine and home-grown, you can hardly claim it's US bullying this time.
I personally think it was a bad move to interfere, but that's based on my opinion that both sides are likely to be equally vicious, and neither would actually bring real democracy. I don’t have the intelligence about that that Nato has, so it’s only my guess.

I disagree with Obama about lots, but I’m not an American Democrat, so that’s not surprising.
I think he’s doing a good job so far, considering what he’s inherited, but I still think it’s far too early to judge.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

How can the US call on France for support AFTER THAT? LOL.

[FBM]

How can the US call on France for support AFTER THAT? LOL.

Spinning out of control. The US didn't call on France for support. France is a part of NATO and supported its decision freely. Enthusiastically, seems.


But to my previous question, do you really like the idea of a military dictator killing everyone who voices dissent? It seems that that's what you're defending here. And if Obama were to do the same as Commander-in-Chief, would you be so critical of other countries who stepped in to stop him from killing Republicans?

[FBM]

[Coito ergo sum]

How can the US call on France for support AFTER THAT? LOL.

Spinning out of control. The US didn't call on France for support. France is a part of NATO and supported its decision freely. Enthusiastically, seems.

I never said they did. My comment alluded to the fact that France can't be called on for support of the US in general, it's not that it's only "after that" that France won't help (well, unless it is overwhelmingly in their own interest to do so).

But to my previous question, do you really like the idea of a military dictator killing everyone who voices dissent?

No. But, that didn't happen in Libya, did it? The Libyan war was not only without an imminent threat, but also for purely PREEMPTIVE humanitarian alleged reasons. Do you really like that idea?

It seems that that's what you're defending here.

I haven't defended that at all. I've pointed out the hypocrisy of those who swallow the governments' lines on Libya, and have no qualms about bombing civilians there under the pretext that it was going to prevent some military attack on civilian populations, all the while having opposed every other intervention that did not involve a direct imminent threat. It's the pro Libya crowd that used to say "there are dictators everywhere doing horrible things, why Iraq?" Well, there are dictators everywhere doing horrible things, why Libya? Why not Syria? Why not 10 other places around the world?

And if Obama were to do the same as Commander-in-Chief, would you be so critical of other countries who stepped in to stop him from killing Republicans?

What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you nuts? Or, are you reading someone else's posts?

[FBM]

We seem to have miscommunicated on the France thing, and since it's after 1:30 a.m. here, I'm not interested in pursuing it.

But, on what basis do you assert that NATO's intervetion in Libya was preemptive and not a response to an ongoing situation?

[Coito ergo sum]

We seem to have miscommunicated on the France thing, and since it's after 1:30 a.m. here, I'm not interested in pursuing it.

But, on what basis do you assert that NATO's intervetion in Libya was preemptive and not a response to an ongoing situation?

It was a situation, but the allegation was only that Qadafi might fire on civilians. At the time of the intervention, he had not done anything of the kind, and other than the fact that there were rebels that he was fighting, there was no indication that he would massacre civilians. Was there? You'll provide me with a link to some report, pre-Libyan intervention, where Qadaffi was massacring civilians or attempting to?

Ask yourself why you don't question the rationale for entering the war? Why? Because FRANCE is in favor of it? Why do you keep repeating that there was some ONGOING killing of civilians going on, when there simply, flat-out WASN'T?

[FBM]

Check the other thread, dood.

[Coito ergo sum]

Check the other thread, dood.

I did. I thought you'd post something good. A few allegations of a small number of "protesters?" I mean - Saddam's total of civilian executions alone was over 600,000 according to human rights organizations, and he killed 100,000 kurds at a pop! You think a couple hundred justify military action and have the gall to oppose the Iraq War? LOL.

[sandinista]

Check the other thread, dood.

I did. I thought you'd post something good. A few allegations of a small number of "protesters?" I mean - Saddam's total of civilian executions alone was over 600,000 according to human rights organizations, and he killed 100,000 kurds at a pop! You think a couple hundred justify military action and have the gall to oppose the Iraq War? LOL.

Again CES, you're starting with the assumption that the Iraq invasion and occupation had something to do with humanitarianism. It didn't...at all. That's simply propaganda geared towards getting some public support, old school shit man, you should be able to see through that.