Two Obamas?

[jeff f]

Ok, dummy....I guess I counted on you reading my question correctly, which is obviously too much for you. Those are all interstate conflicts, including the civil war in many ways. I was talking about domestic insurgencies and political movements. Again, name one domestic insurgency that was dealt with once and for all through violence alone. I didn't ask you to name any war, but well done, jeff. You are obviously a very intelligent guy....

And your second post kindof confirms my point. We can do things to prop up the yemeni government and help it fight off the houthis and do what needs to be done against al quaeda. When you're stupid about these things and don't think about the consequences of military action, you end up having a lot of problems. Go ask george dubya.

And stop with the insults, jeff. You're not very funny or clever at them to begin with and it just makes you look like a fool, especially next to your weaksauce attempts at logic. Clean my room, really? Is that the best we can do, jeff? What the fuck is that even supposed to mean? Try again, jeffrey...

okay, i am gonna have to give you some of this one. i did misread your question.

but i think you are misdescribing them as insurgents. these arent our people for the most part. yes they are coming here but they arent from here, therefor not insurgents. enemy combatants is how i would describe them.

would point to confederacy and any other number of civil wars where insurgents were crushed, russia comes to mind and most recently the chinese tienamin square. hard to argue that overwheliming force didnt work. just so you can hear me I AM NOT ADVOCATING, SUPPORTING, PRETENDING TO SUPPORT THAT WE TAKE ACTION AGAINST AMERICANS. just the opposite. kill them over there before they get here. if an american is plotting with these fuckers, put him through the court system. if he is a rich nigerian bankers kid, fuck him in the ass and send him to the cia in another country and water board the fuck out of him until he gives us actionable intelligence.

as for my "insults" re-read your original post. you called me an idiot and a fool. i am not complaining about that, kinda think its funny. even makes it more funny when you hurl more insults back while tellig me not to use insults...hmmm

i blame it on the the cheap booze and good weed. whats your excuse

 

[yellowrain53]

okay, i am gonna have to give you some of this one. i did misread your question.

but i think you are misdescribing them as insurgents. these arent our people for the most part. yes they are coming here but they arent from here, therefor not insurgents. enemy combatants is how i would describe them.

would point to confederacy and any other number of civil wars where insurgents were crushed, russia comes to mind and most recently the chinese tienamin square. hard to argue that overwheliming force didnt work. just so you can hear me I AM NOT ADVOCATING, SUPPORTING, PRETENDING TO SUPPORT THAT WE TAKE ACTION AGAINST AMERICANS. just the opposite. kill them over there before they get here. if an american is plotting with these fuckers, put him through the court system. if he is a rich nigerian bankers kid, fuck him in the ass and send him to the cia in another country and water board the fuck out of him until he gives us actionable intelligence.

as for my "insults" re-read your original post. you called me an idiot and a fool. i am not complaining about that, kinda think its funny. even makes it more funny when you hurl more insults back while tellig me not to use insults...hmmm

i blame it on the the cheap booze and good weed. whats your excuse

NICE!!!!! thats the first time i heard of someone else considering "terrorists", enemy combatants. all because they cant afford uniforms doesnt mean they arent LEGAL COMBATANTS. im not talking about guys who blow up buildings with airplanes......to them civilian casualties are acceptable.......to me it is not. so they (IMO) are "terrorists". like our military, we dont necesarily purposely target civilians.....but dead kids, is once again, acceptable. so id say we too are "terrorists". and coalition forces have inflicted WAY, WAY, WAY, more harm upon the civilian population of middle eastern countries in the last 10 years then all the terrorist attacks on US interests in history, combined........PERIOD. keep toking.

 

[Illegal Smile]

NICE!!!!! thats the first time i heard of someone else considering "terrorists", enemy combatants. all because they cant afford uniforms doesnt mean they arent LEGAL COMBATANTS. im not talking about guys who blow up buildings with airplanes......to them civilian casualties are acceptable.......to me it is not. so they (IMO) are "terrorists". like our military, we dont necesarily purposely target civilians.....but dead kids, is once again, acceptable. so id say we too are "terrorists". and coalition forces have inflicted WAY, WAY, WAY, more harm upon the civilian population of middle eastern countries in the last 10 years then all the terrorist attacks on US interests in history, combined........PERIOD. keep toking.

Sooooo, you want to let these "legal combatants" of yours do what exactly? Keep killing Americans until that number reaches the number of civilian casualties you think our "coalition forces" have inflicted?

 

[PadawanBater]

i wouldnt call the war in iraq "a victory". LMAO. last time i was there we werent "winning". we're not "taking the fight to them" were "raping other countries for their resources". if a militant islamic person wants to come to the states to blow some shit up......you really think a war in iraq will stop them? or afghanistan for that matter. we're trying to squash violence with more violence......and unfortunately the enemy isnt the only one on the dangerous end of the gun.......ie WE ARE MAKING MORE ENEMIES EVERY DAY WE ARE OVER THERE. WTF are we still doing in the desert???????? were securing US financial interests......if you think theres more to it i suggest you do more research. a couple decades ago it was "communism"......but we've already milked that one for all its worth."terrorism".....its just the new "ism". fire away fellas!

Great post man, we are on exactly the same page.

It's about $$$, always has been.

 

[jeff f]

Great post man, we are on exactly the same page.

It's about $$$, always has been.

yellow, this post should scare the fuck out of you

 

[jeff f]

NICE!!!!! thats the first time i heard of someone else considering "terrorists", enemy combatants. all because they cant afford uniforms doesnt mean they arent LEGAL COMBATANTS. im not talking about guys who blow up buildings with airplanes......to them civilian casualties are acceptable.......to me it is not. so they (IMO) are "terrorists". like our military, we dont necesarily purposely target civilians.....but dead kids, is once again, acceptable. so id say we too are "terrorists". and coalition forces have inflicted WAY, WAY, WAY, more harm upon the civilian population of middle eastern countries in the last 10 years then all the terrorist attacks on US interests in history, combined........PERIOD. keep toking.

they cant afford uniforms? wow, i guess a real rich bankers son of nigeria cant afford to go to a surplus store and buy a uniform? thats fucking hilarious. keep talking your ass is showing.

btw, why dont you give the terrorists your address and tell em you dont mind if they attack you until they catch up in casualties. or is it just okay if they kill 3000 americans again? or is 2000 okay, maybe one thousand? or is it a problem when someone you KNOW gets killed by savages? just trying to get a feeling of how much morally superior you are to everyone else who wants to be protected.

also, when is it okay to stop pretending these guys (the jihadists) dont exist? i mean they put out a film about every other day telling us they will continue to blow us up. when is it okay in your mind to say, "hey, you guys might just be serious?"

 

[RickWhite]

I'm going to ignore the fact that a couple people here are posting opinions without knowing a single thing about, or having any understanding of the issues involved in our conflict in the middle East - that is abundantly clear and I see no point in arguing with people not qualified to speak on the matter.

That being said, I ask that the other reasonable people here not allow the Liberals to keep changing the subject.

This thread is not about agreeing or disagreeing with the Iraq war. This thread is about Obama's foreign policies being demonstrable failures.

Most Liberals previously held the position that we could get Ahmedinijad to cease his nuclear aspirations by opening dialog with him - that failed so miserably that Obama is still wiping the egg from his face.

Most Liberals supported the notion that terrorists are a small group of criminals and that we are not engaged in a global war against radical Muslims - it is now clear that they are wrong just as Conservatives have been saying all along.

Most Liberals argued adamantly that extending an olive branch to the radicals and changing our own policies would remove the incentive for them to become terrorists - this too is proving to be false.

Obama specifically stated in his own words that there is no global war on terror. His positions and his views on the issue were quite empathetic and his base was behind all of these notions with every ounce of confidence they could muster. After a year of actually dealing with the issue, his positions and views on the subject are now 100% different from what they were previously and he is seeing (though not admitting) that he was dead wrong on everything he believed before.

I am just wondering if you Liberals (who supported his incorrect notions) are now willing to nut up and admit that your lord and savior has abandon his wrong thinking because he has come to see that he was wrong, and if you are prepared to do likewise.

 

[doc111]

I only see one Obama. Barack Hussein Obama the politician....................

 

[yellowrain53]

they cant afford uniforms? wow, i guess a real rich bankers son of nigeria cant afford to go to a surplus store and buy a uniform? thats fucking hilarious. keep talking your ass is showing.

btw, why dont you give the terrorists your address and tell em you dont mind if they attack you until they catch up in casualties. or is it just okay if they kill 3000 americans again? or is 2000 okay, maybe one thousand? or is it a problem when someone you KNOW gets killed by savages? just trying to get a feeling of how much morally superior you are to everyone else who wants to be protected.

also, when is it okay to stop pretending these guys (the jihadists) dont exist? i mean they put out a film about every other day telling us they will continue to blow us up. when is it okay in your mind to say, "hey, you guys might just be serious?"

no..... dude CANT go to a surplus store to buy a uniform.....holy jesus have you even been to iraq????? and of all the people who shoot at me and my friends (yes i happen to know people who were killed. i also happen to know how it feels to get hit with a 7.62 projectile.....) i dont think ANY of the fuckers i saw shooting at me were from "nigeria".....youre getting your "jihadists" mixed up buddy. and are another 3000....2000.....1000...... casualties "okay"......get real you ass. how about the 4000 KIA in iraq alone. dont come on here and preach about things of which you know NOTHING. nothing in my post sounded morally superior. and if it did then i apologize for that as it was not my intent.

 

[abe23]

okay, i am gonna have to give you some of this one. i did misread your question.

but i think you are misdescribing them as insurgents. these arent our people for the most part. yes they are coming here but they arent from here, therefor not insurgents. enemy combatants is how i would describe them.

would point to confederacy and any other number of civil wars where insurgents were crushed, russia comes to mind and most recently the chinese tienamin square. hard to argue that overwheliming force didnt work. just so you can hear me I AM NOT ADVOCATING, SUPPORTING, PRETENDING TO SUPPORT THAT WE TAKE ACTION AGAINST AMERICANS. just the opposite. kill them over there before they get here. if an american is plotting with these fuckers, put him through the court system. if he is a rich nigerian bankers kid, fuck him in the ass and send him to the cia in another country and water board the fuck out of him until he gives us actionable intelligence.

as for my "insults" re-read your original post. you called me an idiot and a fool. i am not complaining about that, kinda think its funny. even makes it more funny when you hurl more insults back while tellig me not to use insults...hmmm

i blame it on the the cheap booze and good weed. whats your excuse

Good weed and too much free time on my hands, really. I like having these discussions as long they stay cool. I try to go easy on the insults but I do get carried away sometimes...I know that I've said that you are a coward and a moron for thinking that torturing people and strip searching muslims on airplanes will make you safer and I'm sticking by that.

I reject the notion that somehow we are fighting a completely new enemy and have to radically change the way we treat threats from violent political movements. There are a lot of things that make the threat from islamic terrorists unique and we have to adapt our methods to the fight. But to say that this creates a new paradigm in national security and the way we treat other countries or even our own citizens, just isn't justified. Last time I brought this up you laughed at me, but in terms of actual deaths of americans, cigarettes, the 65mph vs 55mph speed limit and diabetes are much bigger threats to our safety that osama bin laden, but we aren't willing to sacrifice our freedoms to fight those.

And you're right, tianamen square is probably a good example of a political dissidence being crushed by force alone, as is the eastern block, but those are both extremely repressive regimes with a huge policy state and repressive apparatus...in the case of the soviet union it didn't last and china has changed a lot. I think of the confederacy more as an interstate conflict since the south actually seceded and was independent during that time.

My point was that if you look at modern history and try to draw any lessons from it, the one that sticks out is that in the long run you have to find political solution to these problems as well as military/security ones.

 

[yellowrain53]

yellow, this post should scare the fuck out of you

lol nothing scares me.....actually on this subject padawan has a pretty good grasp.....IMHO of course.

 

[abe23]

I'm going to ignore the fact that a couple people here are posting opinions without knowing a single thing about, or having any understanding of the issues involved in our conflict in the middle East - that is abundantly clear and I see no point in arguing with people not qualified to speak on the matter.

That being said, I ask that the other reasonable people here not allow the Liberals to keep changing the subject.

This thread is not about agreeing or disagreeing with the Iraq war. This thread is about Obama's foreign policies being demonstrable failures.

Most Liberals previously held the position that we could get Ahmedinijad to cease his nuclear aspirations by opening dialog with him - that failed so miserably that Obama is still wiping the egg from his face.

Most Liberals supported the notion that terrorists are a small group of criminals and that we are not engaged in a global war against radical Muslims - it is now clear that they are wrong just as Conservatives have been saying all along.

Most Liberals argued adamantly that extending an olive branch to the radicals and changing our own policies would remove the incentive for them to become terrorists - this too is proving to be false.

Obama specifically stated in his own words that there is no global war on terror. His positions and his views on the issue were quite empathetic and his base was behind all of these notions with every ounce of confidence they could muster. After a year of actually dealing with the issue, his positions and views on the subject are now 100% different from what they were previously and he is seeing (though not admitting) that he was dead wrong on everything he believed before.

I am just wondering if you Liberals (who supported his incorrect notions) are now willing to nut up and admit that your lord and savior has abandon his wrong thinking because he has come to see that he was wrong, and if you are prepared to do likewise.

Man, you really let politics cloud your judgement don't you...

Iran: Obama said let's talk and reasonable. Ahmedinejad said no thanks. Iranians voted for a more reasonable guy but the pasadran and mullahs tried to rig the election. Now it actually looks like the islamic republic's day might be numbered. This didn't happen when we were being confrontational towards them when bush was pres. I'm not giving obama credit for what's going on over there, but his election and change in our attitude since have certainly had an impact on what's going on in iran.

It might be a little soon to declare failure, buddy. Undiebomber doesn't change that either....

 

[yellowrain53]

as far as obama is concerned.....yeah i voted for him......and im feeling a bit ripped-off right about now. he talked a good talk.....too bad hes a liar like the rest of them.

 

[yellowrain53]

they cant afford uniforms? Wow, i guess a real rich bankers son of nigeria cant afford to go to a surplus store and buy a uniform? Thats fucking hilarious. Keep talking your ass is showing.

Btw, why dont you give the terrorists your address and tell em you dont mind if they attack you until they catch up in casualties. Or is it just okay if they kill 3000 americans again? Or is 2000 okay, maybe one thousand? Or is it a problem when someone you know gets killed by savages? Just trying to get a feeling of how much morally superior you are to everyone else who wants to be protected.

Also, when is it okay to stop pretending these guys (the jihadists) dont exist? I mean they put out a film about every other day telling us they will continue to blow us up. When is it okay in your mind to say, "hey, you guys might just be serious?"

edited............

 

[yellowrain53]

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS ARGUEMENT IS HOVERING AROUND A COUPLE DIFFERENT points of view. SOME ON HERE THINK THAT WE REALLY ARE AT WAR WITH THE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS......THE OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE THINK WERE OVER THERE FOR GREED.......shit sorry caps lock........ how are we to have anything that resembles intelligent discussion if were too busy throwing (weak) insults at eachother? i dont fully agree with what ANY of you say. but i do partially agree with all the points stated.....as for me.....ive supported both sides of the argument i used to be ultra conservative.......until i started paying attention. now im neither........ im just asking, how can someone state a point about the pres (good or bad) without being tackled by people who dont agree? be nice you guys. talk like adults. and by the way the insults are boring and unoriginal.....although i do enjoy the term "show your ass......." id say there are quite a few examples of this in this thread alone............




PS.. i do apologize for changing the thread to "iraq, etc". i was replying to a post and it got me off on a tangent.

 

[yellowrain53]

Great post man, we are on exactly the same page.

It's about $$$, always has been.

padawan: i dont always agree with the things you post, but on this subject........youll get no argument from me.

 

[figtree]

its very hard to understand where the conservatives are coming from with their advice, the reason..... they want Obama to fail, so they are saying what he needs to do? why so he can fail, and they can say i told you so! i will not take any advice from a conservative and I am an independent. I think that they are trying to sabotage our country because they dont like Obama personaly. I didnt like Bush, and have stated it adamantly...... but i would never try to undermine his presidency, and thus undermine our country. I didnt agree with a thing that he did, but he was our comander in chief and there is alot that we are not told from either side as to why they do what they do, weather we like it or not. Obama is not the end all for what is going on, he even stated that he would have been in a better position politicaly if he waited until this recession is over to run for pres. he knew going in that his job would be extremely dificult because of what has been screwed in the past mostly by the conservatives, but he stepped up, even if it meant he was to become a 1 term president. he put his neck out there to try to fix all this. just understand that before you start to slam him and how he's doing.

regarding iran, i believe that we (USA) are standing in between iran and isreal, they are frothing at the mouth to attack iran and will even make up reasons to carry it out. our attemps to have a dialogue with iran stems from our interest in isreal, and the middle east as a whole, we put isreal back into power in the middle east for a reason and have backed their war crimes as well, one reason that we are looked at as tyrants, or an occupational force. this is one area that Obama is trying to correct internationally. Bush totally screwed our reputation internationally, "freedom fries" anyone? we need to come together internationally not isolate our friends like what Bush did. we need to understand that there are different points of view not just our point of view, and there are different ways of dealing with things rather than just dropping bombs or isolating our friends or future friends.

I hate to say this, but ive been seeing alot of this "profiling" in the news and it seems like conservatives want to use "profiling to keeps us safe". this is one area that i think they are trying to set up a mindset that if your not american you are dangerous, if you dont look like us your dangerous, if your not with us your our enemy, and we will attack you pre-emptively. this mindset is dangerous and its part of what got us into the mess we are in, it sounds too much like segragation. we are a free country and what that means is there is more danger from attacks if our government is stomping around the planet like a dictator (Bush-Cheney). freedom is a very delicate thing, and we are not free if we build walls, strip searches at airports, or are too scared to board a plane without all the "brown people" strip searched first. where will it end? all this before we board a city bus? what about anywhere else that there might be some "brown people". Freedom is scary if our governments interests go against our interests....... we need to think about what we are doing internationally and how it will affect our "freedoms", because everything we do internationally has a direct affect on our freedom and how safe we are, because you cant stop everything bad that happens..... thats a fact.

That being said, i want our country to succeed, i want everyone that needs a job to have one, i want our country to be on the top of the morals list, or the ethics list, i want our country to again be a melting pot, where you are free to choose what religion you are, where we are diversified and it doesnt matter if your different ethnically, i want our country to be a shining light for the good that we all have in us, i want our country to be a leader in every way, but leading by example not leading by force.

oh my, long post........ sorry.
I hope everyone has a great day! and great harvest!

 

[PadawanBater]

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THIS ARGUEMENT IS HOVERING AROUND A COUPLE DIFFERENT points of view. SOME ON HERE THINK THAT WE REALLY ARE AT WAR WITH THE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS......THE OTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE THINK WERE OVER THERE FOR GREED.......shit sorry caps lock........ how are we to have anything that resembles intelligent discussion if were too busy throwing (weak) insults at eachother? i dont fully agree with what ANY of you say. but i do partially agree with all the points stated.....as for me.....ive supported both sides of the argument i used to be ultra conservative.......until i started paying attention. now im neither........ im just asking, how can someone state a point about the pres (good or bad) without being tackled by people who dont agree? be nice you guys. talk like adults. and by the way the insults are boring and unoriginal.....although i do enjoy the term "show your ass......." id say there are quite a few examples of this in this thread alone............




PS.. i do apologize for changing the thread to "iraq, etc". i was replying to a post and it got me off on a tangent.

I agree. But the problem with that is each of our information is not consistent. So when someone comes in with a different opinion, I'm using Rick here as an example because he started the thread, he thinks it's wrong, he thinks your stupid and he then thinks you don't deserve to speak up about anything because in your opinion, you're simply not qualified. Obviously that has become a huge issue when communicating with the guy. Watch, even this post will be met with nothing but hostility, even though I haven't said anything to justify it.

The difference between his point of view and my point of view is this; I'm willing to hear every side of the issue and debate the points made with anyone, Rick states his point of view, then if you don't agree with it, to him, you're either too stupid and haven't reasoned out the problem correctly or are corrupted by the liberal media or are an Obama fanboy... or any other host of insults that doesn't do anything but cause tension and problems. Like I told Cracker a while back, I like the guy, I honestly do, his views and opinions are always different, but usually pretty well thought out, him and I couldn't be more opposite on most of the foreign policies we have, but he's different in that he states his point - then defends it with data and evidence (most of the time).

If you go on the attack automatically, like Rick and a few others constantly do, with every thread, even if you agree with what they say, they intentionally word it in a way that makes it impossible to agree with. Ex.

"Wow, are you liberal morons finally ready to admit that everything Obama said he was going to do he's failed misserably on and backtracked and hasn't solved shit!?"

...See, while I think Obama is doing a goddamn terrible job as president (something we BOTH AGREE on), I can clearly tell the shit Ricks pushing is partisan politics, just because he's a democrat, just because he has some personal hatred for Obama.

Obama's been president for less than a year, whose the naive one to think the world will change overnight?

Thanks for your service yellow, you sound like you're one of the few whose got their head on straight.

So go ahead Rick, I know you're itching for it! Pick this post appart and point out every little detail you disagree with, chalk full of insults and offensive comments.

 

[yellowrain53]

its very hard to understand where the conservatives are coming from with their advice, the reason..... they want Obama to fail, so they are saying what he needs to do? why so he can fail, and they can say i told you so! i will not take any advice from a conservative and I am an independent. I think that they are trying to sabotage our country because they dont like Obama personaly. I didnt like Bush, and have stated it adamantly...... but i would never try to undermine his presidency, and thus undermine our country. I didnt agree with a thing that he did, but he was our comander in chief and there is alot that we are not told from either side as to why they do what they do, weather we like it or not. Obama is not the end all for what is going on, he even stated that he would have been in a better position politicaly if he waited until this recession is over to run for pres. he knew going in that his job would be extremely dificult because of what has been screwed in the past mostly by the conservatives, but he stepped up, even if it meant he was to become a 1 term president. he put his neck out there to try to fix all this. just understand that before you start to slam him and how he's doing.

regarding iran, i believe that we (USA) are standing in between iran and isreal, they are frothing at the mouth to attack iran and will even make up reasons to carry it out. our attemps to have a dialogue with iran stems from our interest in isreal, and the middle east as a whole, we put isreal back into power in the middle east for a reason and have backed their war crimes as well, one reason that we are looked at as tyrants, or an occupational force. this is one area that Obama is trying to correct internationally. Bush totally screwed our reputation internationally, "freedom fries" anyone? we need to come together internationally not isolate our friends like what Bush did. we need to understand that there are different points of view not just our point of view, and there are different ways of dealing with things rather than just dropping bombs or isolating our friends or future friends.

I hate to say this, but ive been seeing alot of this "profiling" in the news and it seems like conservatives want to use "profiling to keeps us safe". this is one area that i think they are trying to set up a mindset that if your not american you are dangerous, if you dont look like us your dangerous, if your not with us your our enemy, and we will attack you pre-emptively. this mindset is dangerous and its part of what got us into the mess we are in, it sounds too much like segragation. we are a free country and what that means is there is more danger from attacks if our government is stomping around the planet like a dictator (Bush-Cheney). freedom is a very delicate thing, and we are not free if we build walls, strip searches at airports, or are too scared to board a plane without all the "brown people" strip searched first. where will it end? all this before we board a city bus? what about anywhere else that there might be some "brown people". Freedom is scary if our governments interests go against our interests....... we need to think about what we are doing internationally and how it will affect our "freedoms", because everything we do internationally has a direct affect on our freedom and how safe we are, because you cant stop everything bad that happens..... thats a fact.

That being said, i want our country to succeed, i want everyone that needs a job to have one, i want our country to be on the top of the morals list, or the ethics list, i want our country to again be a melting pot, where you are free to choose what religion you are, where we are diversified and it doesnt matter if your different ethnically, i want our country to be a shining light for the good that we all have in us, i want our country to be a leader in every way, but leading by example not leading by force.

oh my, long post........ sorry.
I hope everyone has a great day! and great harvest!

concur doctor. good post.

 

[natrone23]

Well, I would say Iraq is an example of triumph over an insurgency but the fighters in Iraq were not insurgents - most were foreign fighters crossing the border from Iran and elsewhere and the rest were jihadists, not patriots defending their country.

WRONG

Foreign Fighters only represented at the most 10% of the Iraqi insurgents.