Who's the Terrorist?

[PLC1]

Suprisingly, that's a very easy question to answer. Of the two serious choices for president left to me, Barack Obama is not John McCain.

'nuff said.

And neither of them is George Bush, so we're likely to be better off regardless of which one is elected.

We'd most likely be marginally better off under a McCain administration, for a variety of reasons:

As Andy pointed out in response to my last post, Obama is proposing quite a list of new spending, this during the worst recession of recent memory. With a Democratic controlled Congress, and a Democratic president, it is likely that at least some of the new spending could be enacted.

And, with a Republican in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress, we at least stand a chance that the two major parties will check each other, will not grow the government quite as much as one party in charge of everything is likely to do (as seen by the Republican trifecta of the first six years of the Bush administration, for example), and that there might actually be some real debate about substantive issues.

Just imagine what might have resulted, for example, had we not had a Democratic majority in Congress to check the Republican president and his idea of handing $700 billion out without safeguards.

If we must have political parties, we're better off to have then sharing power.

 

[Libsmasher]

Neither candidate has an idea how best to end the war in Iraq, the one in Afganistan, or to get Bin Laden.

If we're going to be real, stop distorting the record. McCain was the earliest congressional supporter of the troop surge

(see eg http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16484446/)

That changed the stalemate of 2006 and has brought us very close to victory in Iraq. Once again getting Bin Laden is neither here nor there.

 

[PLC1]

If we're going to be real, stop distorting the record. McCain was the earliest congressional supporter of the troop surge

(see eg http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16484446/)

That changed the stalemate of 2006 and has brought us very close to victory in Iraq. Once again getting Bin Laden is neither here nor there.

But Bin Laden isn't here, so he has to be there.

I forgot. Bush did a flip flop and decided that Bin Laden wasn't a priority, so, that means you now think he isn't important either.

So, now we send in another troop surge, this time in Afganistan, and come away as winners in the war.

What is it we're going to win, again?

 

[BigRob]

But Bin Laden isn't here, so he has to be there.

I forgot. Bush did a flip flop and decided that Bin Laden wasn't a priority, so, that means you now think he isn't important either.

So, now we send in another troop surge, this time in Afganistan, and come away as winners in the war.

What is it we're going to win, again?

Bid Laden really is mostly a figure head at this point. We really have destroyed a lot of Al Quada's ability to coordinate, and attacks that we are seeing are mostly crude, rushed, and not as effective.

This leads to the argument that there is no central planning for these attacks and that Bin Laden has lost operation control.

So, what can we do?

Hunt down Bin Laden and make him a martyr to rally people to his cause? Or maybe quietly go after him (if we know where he is) and kill him quietly.

While it certainly makes sense that if we did confirm his death we would rush to make it public and score a huge PR victory with it, it also would probably lessen the support for the wars, as many people would say we killed Bin Laden, now we can come home, when in operational terms, Bin Laden's death does mean mean all that much.

I am all for killing him, but I can understand why the priority has shifted away from him.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Before considering this topic, back up a bit and look at the facts as if you were playing a strategic game of chess and one side was named "McCain/Palin" and the other "Obama Biden". Just look at the facts and ignore your prejudice for the purposes of this discussion.

We have McCain and Palin, during a time of extreme US vulnerability...enemies cruising warships in the Gulf of Mexico, Iran drooling and waiting...China eerily silent like a panther in the jungle just behind the foliage; our economy in shambles and getting worse by the day.. McCain and Palin are currently and actively inciting deep civil unrest...presiding over rallies where calls of violence to the other candidate in a civil election are met not only with no admonishment, but instead de facto encouragement. They do the work for our enemies of further weakening the American people by creating a division of hatred and inciting violence between people who absolutely must stand united in this darkest of American times..

On the other side we have Obama having brushed elbows with a reformed disgruntled hippie who made some bad decisions forty years ago as an impetuous young man.

Who is the greater threat to the US in the present day and time?

Remember, back up and think of this as a strategic game. Who is the greater threat to the US, Obama/Biden or McCain/Palin?

I suggest that Congress first warn McCain and Palin about recent unsettling rallies and public statements they've made where they have had a hand in rebel-rousing and attempting to exacerbate civil unrest in time of war. If that warning fails, they should indict and then prosecute John McCain and Sarah Palin and any surrogates who participated in these illegal activities.

Give them fair warning...which is something Obama would not be given if he presided over rallies with a smile where clearly audible threats against McCain were being yelled. Obama would simply no longer have a shot at the presidency if this happened even once. The GOP would be all over that like flies on dookie. We should handle them with the same treatment for attempting to sabotage the stability of the American public.

I guess the word "hypocrite" still doesn't mean anything to Dems. For the past nearly 8 years, all we've heard from the left is vitriol, slander, libel, defamation of character, and yes, even death threats all directed at President Bush and VP Cheney, and NOW all of a sudden you're calling for everyone to "play well with others"? PLEASE!

 

[Libsmasher]

But Bin Laden isn't here, so he has to be there.

I forgot. Bush did a flip flop and decided that Bin Laden wasn't a priority, so, that means you now think he isn't important either.

You disagree with Bush on everything, but he hasn't gotten Osama so suddenly you agree with THAT. Saying the target is Osama is like saying the target in WWII was Hitler. Of course, the target was the war-making capablities of germany, just as now the target is the personnel and infrastructure of al qaeda.

What is it we're going to win, again?

1. The end of the baathist regime which threatened all it's neighboring states, and which CERTAINLY would have had WMDs by now, if not for being overthrown by the coalition, and 2. the creation of the second democracy in the middleast, an achievement of incalulable value in that strategic part of the world. I know, I know ....... you appeasers forgot number 1, and don't have the intellect to graps number 2.

 

[PLC1]

Bid Laden really is mostly a figure head at this point. We really have destroyed a lot of Al Quada's ability to coordinate, and attacks that we are seeing are mostly crude, rushed, and not as effective.

This leads to the argument that there is no central planning for these attacks and that Bin Laden has lost operation control.

So, what can we do?

Hunt down Bin Laden and make him a martyr to rally people to his cause? Or maybe quietly go after him (if we know where he is) and kill him quietly.

While it certainly makes sense that if we did confirm his death we would rush to make it public and score a huge PR victory with it, it also would probably lessen the support for the wars, as many people would say we killed Bin Laden, now we can come home, when in operational terms, Bin Laden's death does mean mean all that much.

I am all for killing him, but I can understand why the priority has shifted away from him.

At this point, Bin Laden is likely no more than a symbol. Were we to kill him, he would becom a martyr.

What we should do is to go and capture him, then put him on trial.

What we should have done right after the attack of 9/11 was to go in and capture him and his cohorts, and then hold a war crimes tribunal prior to throwing their asses in jail for life.


What we did do, unfortunately, was to invade Iraq, which had nothing at all ot do with the attack, then let Bin Laden remain at large, and his organization to get a toehold into Iraq and use it as a recruiting and training ground for terrorists.

 

[BigRob]

At this point, Bin Laden is likely no more than a symbol. Were we to kill him, he would becom a martyr.

Well, I agree, which is why I said exactly that.

What we should do is to go and capture him, then put him on trial.

I am fine for this, as long as it is NOT a public trial. It would simply be made into a mockery.

What we should have done right after the attack of 9/11 was to go in and capture him and his cohorts, and then hold a war crimes tribunal prior to throwing their asses in jail for life.

It is a bit more complicated than that given the terrain and region of Afghanistan/Pakistan that he is hiding out in. Really in that area borders mean nothing, and governments don't have control over the area. The only problem is we are not able to cross the border to go after him or anyone else without seeing the backlash we are seeing now. However, that said, and as we agreed, he is basically a figure head, and even if we did already kill him, I probably would have argued to keep it quiet.

What we did do, unfortunately, was to invade Iraq, which had nothing at all ot do with the attack, then let Bin Laden remain at large, and his organization to get a toehold into Iraq and use it as a recruiting and training ground for terrorists.

I think the majority of what them get a toehold in Iraq was our failed strategy (or lack of strategy) for how to run the occupation. We were greeted well initially, it was only when we disbanded the army, could not restore basic services etc that the general population turned. Now thankfully, it has turned back.

 

[Libsmasher]

What we did do, unfortunately, was to invade Iraq, which had nothing at all ot do with the attack, then let Bin Laden remain at large, and his organization to get a toehold into Iraq and use it as a recruiting and training ground for terrorists.

Osama had nothing to do with Iraq - it's only you appeasers who have conflated the two. Iraq was invaded because it was thought they had nukes.

 

[PLC1]

Well, I agree, which is why I said exactly that.



I am fine for this, as long as it is NOT a public trial. It would simply be made into a mockery.

But the outcome needs to have been made public, and the terrorists need to know that their hero is a criminal who is rotting in jail in the land of the infidels.

It is a bit more complicated than that given the terrain and region of Afghanistan/Pakistan that he is hiding out in. Really in that area borders mean nothing, and governments don't have control over the area. The only problem is we are not able to cross the border to go after him or anyone else without seeing the backlash we are seeing now. However, that said, and as we agreed, he is basically a figure head, and even if we did already kill him, I probably would have argued to keep it quiet.

It's possible that we did already kill him, and are keeping it quiet.

Yes, it would have been complicated by the fact that he and his organization were hiding in an area that is effectively an anarchy. Still, it would have been a whole lot easier and more effective than going in and using Al Qaeda as an excuse to invade Iraq. Iraq and 9/11 never did have anything to do with each other, other than to provide a convenient excuse for those who wanted to take Saddam Hussain out.

I think the majority of what them get a toehold in Iraq was our failed strategy (or lack of strategy) for how to run the occupation. We were greeted well initially, it was only when we disbanded the army, could not restore basic services etc that the general population turned. Now thankfully, it has turned back.

Yes, we allowed them to get a toehold in Iraq by our failed strategy. We, or at least the Bush administration, expected that the invasion would be a walk in the park, and so didn't plan for an extended occupation and insurgency. The resulting chaos made a perfect breeding ground for Al Qaeda, and they readily took advantage of it.

While the level of violence has tapered off in Iraq, thank goodness and at long last, Al Qaeda is still a presence there.

Now, the hotbed of Al Qaeda is that lawless area you referred to that makes up the region around the border of Afganistan and Pakistan. That is where we should have gone in the first place. The whole so called "war on terror" has been botched, and I for one lay most of the blame on the commander in chief who is in charge of it.

Osama had nothing to do with Iraq - it's only you appeasers who have conflated the two. Iraq was invaded because it was thought they had nukes.

The chief "appeaser", then, was the current commander in chief, who has been "conflating" 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq ever since that attacke gave him and his advisors an excuse to start a war. That same administration wrongly determined that Hussain had nukes, or said that they did, in order to have another excuse to go to war.

The real reason that the commander in chief decided to invad a nation that he knew had nothing to do with attacking the US and was not a threat to the US was that god told him to.

At least, that is what he said.

 

[BigRob]

But the outcome needs to have been made public, and the terrorists need to know that their hero is a criminal who is rotting in jail in the land of the infidels.

Well, I have no problem making the outcome public, but the trial itself should not be public.

It's possible that we did already kill him, and are keeping it quiet.

Yes, it would have been complicated by the fact that he and his organization were hiding in an area that is effectively an anarchy. Still, it would have been a whole lot easier and more effective than going in and using Al Qaeda as an excuse to invade Iraq. Iraq and 9/11 never did have anything to do with each other, other than to provide a convenient excuse for those who wanted to take Saddam Hussain out.

Well, perhaps. I do not see anything "easy" about trying to control that region of the world. I think our strategy in Afghanistan was better thought out at the time, as we did not do cross border raids as publicly, and did not put the Pakistani government in such a compromising situation.

The last thing that we need is Pakistan failing, or turning away from the West. We must remember that they are a nuclear power already and can upset the entire balance in not only the Middle East but with India as well.

While I do not think they are about to hand over a bomb to some extremist, it still destabilizes Kashmir and could trigger another arms race in the region. Also, it sets up yet another prime location for recruiting and training.

As for why we invaded Iraq, I was not privy to the meeting before, but from conversations with very high level people in the administration I feel secure in saying that the intel we had at the time justified a war. Now anyone can argue that they are simply trying to cover for themselves, but there is no reason that they would need to try to cover to me. Just my personal feelings however, feel free to disagree.

Yes, we allowed them to get a toehold in Iraq by our failed strategy. We, or at least the Bush administration, expected that the invasion would be a walk in the park, and so didn't plan for an extended occupation and insurgency. The resulting chaos made a perfect breeding ground for Al Qaeda, and they readily took advantage of it.

While the level of violence has tapered off in Iraq, thank goodness and at long last, Al Qaeda is still a presence there.

Certainly the aftermath of the war was a debacle. We had no strategy to speak of which caused us all the problems. We must remember however that in the beginning the insurgency was not just Al Qaeda, but also many different militant groups with no connection to the organization.

Now, the hotbed of Al Qaeda is that lawless area you referred to that makes up the region around the border of Afganistan and Pakistan. That is where we should have gone in the first place. The whole so called "war on terror" has been botched, and I for one lay most of the blame on the commander in chief who is in charge of it.

Well, I place a lot of faith in Bush's judgment for not ordering us into the tribal regions in Pakistan at the time. We have seen a shift from this recently, and we can measure the results, which have been terrible.

This is another reason the foreign policy of Obama is scary. He wants to continue the process, which will lead us straight to disaster in Pakistan in my view. If Obama wins, and he continues this policy, I think the next foreign policy disaster/problem for the United States is a failed nuclear Pakistan.

 

[GenSeneca]

If Obama wins, and he continues this policy, I think the next foreign policy disaster/problem for the United States is a failed nuclear Pakistan.

That's Change you can believe in!

 

[Sihouette]

Wouldn't it be weird if we found out Osama Bin Laden (brother of Dubya's business partner Salem Bin Laden and son of longtime Bush family friends, the Bin Ladens) was a ruse, an excuse that took on a life of its own. The excuse? To portray The Middle East as a threat that needed to be invaded for "democracy" and "freedom" (translation: insert de facto US control over oil reserves there)

What if you found out Bin Laden "couldn't" be found because it is US policy not to find him? ie: that was the initial agreement for his accepting the "fall guy" position? What if he has a haircut and a nose job and is living in a penthouse in Manhattan on US payroll? Like a weird-looking immigrant would stand out in a city famous for immigrants?

With satellite imagery today, the CIA could find a pimple on a gnat's ass from outer space. And we're supposed to believe that this man Osama, tall, gangly and very odd looking, somehow cannot be found? Even after he televises stuff? (How convenient to keep the ruse going, eh?).

What if?

Under those conditions, who would you say the terrorists are?

 

[BigRob]

Wouldn't it be weird if we found out Osama Bin Laden (brother of Dubya's business partner Salem Bin Laden and son of longtime Bush family friends, the Bin Ladens) was a ruse, an excuse that took on a life of its own. The excuse? To portray The Middle East as a threat that needed to be invaded for "democracy" and "freedom" (translation: insert de facto US control over oil reserves there)

What if you found out Bin Laden "couldn't" be found because it is US policy not to find him? ie: that was the initial agreement for his accepting the "fall guy" position? What if he has a haircut and a nose job and is living in a penthouse in Manhattan on US payroll? Like a weird-looking immigrant would stand out in a city famous for immigrants?

With satellite imagery today, the CIA could find a pimple on a gnat's ass from outer space. And we're supposed to believe that this man Osama, tall, gangly and very odd looking, somehow cannot be found? Even after he televises stuff? (How convenient to keep the ruse going, eh?).

What if?

Under those conditions, who would you say the terrorists are?

You were saying something about learning how to think?

 

[Pandora]

Wouldn't it be weird if we found out Osama Bin Laden (brother of Dubya's business partner Salem Bin Laden and son of longtime Bush family friends, the Bin Ladens) was a ruse, an excuse that took on a life of its own. The excuse? To portray The Middle East as a threat that needed to be invaded for "democracy" and "freedom" (translation: insert de facto US control over oil reserves there)

What if you found out Bin Laden "couldn't" be found because it is US policy not to find him? ie: that was the initial agreement for his accepting the "fall guy" position? What if he has a haircut and a nose job and is living in a penthouse in Manhattan on US payroll? Like a weird-looking immigrant would stand out in a city famous for immigrants?

With satellite imagery today, the CIA could find a pimple on a gnat's ass from outer space. And we're supposed to believe that this man Osama, tall, gangly and very odd looking, somehow cannot be found? Even after he televises stuff? (How convenient to keep the ruse going, eh?).

What if?

Under those conditions, who would you say the terrorists are?

OK I am still confused.

I know that you are not calling your messiah the terrorist, I am following enough to catch on to that

but are you saying that Bush is the terrorist or that McCain is the terrorist

please just spell it out instead of speaking in code

a name here ---> [ ] is the terrorist