Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch

**gunnut** · 05 Jan 10, 23:33

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

ironically this is what liberals are saying about obama, because far from announcing an immediate withdrawal from afghanistan, obama has greenlighted much more aggressive use of predator strikes as well as the afghan surge. also note his use of the nobel peace prize speech platform to promote the necessity of the US using armed force.

these are all things foreign policy hawks should applaud.

But...he announced a firm withdraw date as he was announcing his troop build up. He also took too long to decide to increase our troop strength in A-stan. His campaign promise was to stand down in Iraq and reinforce our forces in A-stan.

I applaud the increase of forces in A-stan. I have defended him many times when others have said that he wanted to end the war.

What he is doing looks like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to increase the war in A-stan but appear to be peaceful (Nobel). He called out Al Queda as a terror organization that threatens us but doesn't want to call our actions "war" against them.

**gunnut** · 05 Jan 10, 23:38

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

So then you are an Enemy of the Government of the USA? You can't be an enemy of part of a State.

I am the enemy of those who do not respect the US Constitution.

**Roosveltrepub** · 05 Jan 10, 23:41

Originally Posted by gunnut

I am the enemy of those who do not respect the US Constitution.

and you not the Supreme Court are the Arbitrator of that allowing you to frame the argument in that language.

**gunnut** · 05 Jan 10, 23:50

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

and you not the Supreme Court are the Arbitrator of that allowing you to frame the argument in that language.

Are you saying the supreme court, manned by humans, cannot possibly make a mistake?

**Roosveltrepub** · 05 Jan 10, 23:57

Originally Posted by gunnut

Are you saying the supreme court, manned by humans, cannot possibly make a mistake?

No, I am saying according to the Constitution they not you are the Arbitrator of what is and isn't Constitutional.

**gunnut** · 06 Jan 10, 00:01

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

No, I am saying according to the Constitution they not you are the Arbitrator of what is and isn't Constitutional.

And I'm saying the arbitrator could be wrong.

**Roosveltrepub** · 06 Jan 10, 00:15

and I am saying I oppose some actions our government has undertaken under the Constitution but since I believe in it as long as they are ruled constitutional I oppose policies. You on the other hand have identified yourself as an enemy of the state. You don't oppose actions you consider yourself an enemy of Agencies and members of the Government. Is POTUS your enemy as well?

**Roosveltrepub** · 06 Jan 10, 00:29

Originally Posted by gunnut

But...he announced a firm withdraw date as he was announcing his troop build up. He also took too long to decide to increase our troop strength in A-stan. His campaign promise was to stand down in Iraq and reinforce our forces in A-stan.

I applaud the increase of forces in A-stan. I have defended him many times when others have said that he wanted to end the war.

What he is doing looks like he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He wants to increase the war in A-stan but appear to be peaceful (Nobel). He called out Al Queda as a terror organization that threatens us but doesn't want to call our actions "war" against them.

His increase is on top of his previous increase and the drawdown has no number associated with it as has been pointed out to you already. So at least you agree we have needed more forces in Afghanistan and the previous policy that had 8000 there was one that brought us to the situation we found ourselves in when Obama was sworn in. It kind of makes Cheney look foolish barking away after undermining the Afghan war and releasing all those Yemeni terrorists. Re-read the nobel speech it makes a case for the use of force to maintain the peace.

**gunnut** · 06 Jan 10, 00:40

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

and I am saying I oppose some actions our government has undertaken under the Constitution but since I believe in it as long as they are ruled constitutional I oppose policies. You on the other hand have identified yourself as an enemy of the state. You don't oppose actions you consider yourself an enemy of Agencies and members of the Government. Is POTUS your enemy as well?

Is POTUS trying to subvert the Constitution?

**gunnut** · 06 Jan 10, 00:41

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

His increase is on top of his previous increase and the drawdown has no number associated with it as has been pointed out to you already. So at least you agree we have needed more forces in Afghanistan and the previous policy that had 8000 there was one that brought us to the situation we found ourselves in when Obama was sworn in. It kind of makes Cheney look foolish barking away after undermining the Afghan war and releasing all those Yemeni terrorists. Re-read the nobel speech it makes a case for the use of force to maintain the peace.

So you support the Iraq War? Glad to hear that.

**Roosveltrepub** · 06 Jan 10, 00:50

Originally Posted by gunnut

So you support the Iraq War? Glad to hear that.

It was poorly timed and the post invasion plans were a disaster but the idea of over throwing that government was near universal in the USA wasn't it?

**gunnut** · 06 Jan 10, 00:52

Originally Posted by JayTac

What will that change though? No matter what he's calling them there's no denying that he's attacking our enemies with full force. What matters most are his actions. FWIW there are extremist who have reformed their ways so what does it hurt to couple tact with effective aggression?

So Bush calling terrorists "terrorists" and attacking them all over the world is "cowboy" diplomacy. But Barry doing the same thing but lie about it is OK?

I'm just trying to figure out if Barry is trying to have his cake and eat it too.

**JayTac** · 06 Jan 10, 00:53

Originally Posted by gunnut

That's because Bush knew we were at war with terrorists. Terrorism was real. And we were still learning how to deal with terror just a few weeks after 9-11.

Obama's getting flak because terrorism is over in the age of Obama. There is no more terror. We are not at war with terror. He has reached out to our enemies and offered dialog. They are supposed to sit down and tell us how they feel. We will listen and change our arrogant ways so they don't hate us any more.

For some odd reason, they seem to brush off Obama's charm. They still hate us even though Bush is out of office. They still want to bomb us after we ended our war on terror. We even offered to call their acts "man made disasters" as to not offend terrorists.

Somehow these didn't work and Obama is catching some heat from the mainstream media...for once.

No matter what he's calling them there's no denying that he's attacking our enemies with full force. What matters most are his actions. FWIW there are extremist who have reformed their ways so what does it hurt to couple tact with effective aggression?

**gunnut** · 06 Jan 10, 00:54

Originally Posted by Roosveltrepub

It was poorly timed and the post invasion plans were a disaster but the idea of over throwing that government was near universal in the USA wasn't it?

You are dodging the question.

Do you, or do you not, agree that the Iraq War as a pre-emptive strike against a potential threat was a good idea based on the Obama Nobel speech?

**Roosveltrepub** · 06 Jan 10, 02:42

Originally Posted by gunnut

You are dodging the question.

Do you, or do you not, agree that the Iraq War as a pre-emptive strike against a potential threat was a good idea based on the Obama Nobel speech?

Yeah I do. Hindsight is 20/20. The Baathists were brutal and were a legitimate long term threat. I do think it was poorly handled post invasion and the timing of the invasion took resources from Afghanistan. We had more immediate threats still when we took a preemptive action. It was misplaced priorities. Hopefully no future attacks will result from the escape of Bin Laden or allowing the Taliban to regroup. because we were bogged down in Iraq. So, do you believe Obama is your enemy?

Thread: Democrats' worst nightmare: Terrorism on their watch

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Bush Remaking Supreme Court

Democrats Fear GOP Push on Flag-Burning

Last chance for the Democrats?

Texas Republicans Vote to Fine Fugitive Democrats

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions