Increased Violence in Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan…thanks, Obama…

[amicus]

Predicted before and after the election of Barack Hussein Obama, that his ‘appeasement and negotiation’ foreign policies would invigorate Islamic Terrorists around the world, those perceptions appear to have been valid.

Exacerbated by the ‘dithering’, concerning Military Plans in Afghanistan, more Coalition and especially American young men, are being killed and wounded across the war zones.

Rationalization by this administration that the election results in Afghanistan may have been corrupted, gave an excuse for not acting on the Military advice given the White House.

As of today, the election stands as the opponent withdrew from a proposed ‘new election’ and the government of the country is what it is.

What will the next excuse be?

Amicus

 

[xssve]

Yes, and of course, its the governments job to settle all the problems of all the worlds nut cases.

Oh wait, that's the conservative ideal.

 

[xssve]

Wait - who started this war?

 

[TxRad]

Wait - who started this war?

Now, don't be confusing him with facts.

 

[Gavionn]

So, I guess you'd rather continue watching our Troops die in the War in a country that didn't attack us, against people who didn't attack us, never could've attacked us and only dreamed of attacking us - rather than in a War against the folks who actually killed Americans on American soil?

Dubya sold you a bill of goods... War isn't "just keep shopping".

War is loss and sacrifice and horror. There is nothing positive about War, and no one really wins.

But if we're going to be in one, it should be against the people who've already attacked us.

The Afghani elections are a smokescreen.

 

[amicus]

Dear Gavionne..you speak with passion and that is a good thing, but may I enlighten you, or remind you?

It is not, 'adroit' (as opposed to gauche), to refer to the War on Terror, as that is not the approved language of the new administration. But Islamic Terrorist attacks in over 60 nations over the past half century and the announced 'Jihad', religious war, declared by Islamic Extremists, is just that, a declared War.

Refresh your memory about the killing of American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, in several US Consulates around the world, the terrorist bombings in Bali and Indonesia and Spain and Great Britain and, oh, yes, the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people in the Twin Trade Towers in New York City.

One might share your disdain for the horrors of war; one might also recognize that defending this Nation against all threats, domestic and foreign, is the fundamental province of the Commander in Chief, the President, of this Nation.

Whether you believe it or not, there is and has been a continuing war perpetrated by Islamic Nations against the Infidels of the West. Without any atttempts to stop and/or contain this aggression, the entire Middle East might now be unified under extremist Islamic Rule and begin to expand, even more than it has, throughout Europe, Africa and Asia.

If the United States is not to take the lead in this 'war on terror', who, then should?

Amicus

 

[Gavionn]

Dear Gavionne..you speak with passion and that is a good thing, but may I enlighten you, or remind you?

It is not, 'adroit' (as opposed to gauche), to refer to the War on Terror, as that is not the approved language of the new administration. But Islamic Terrorist attacks in over 60 nations over the past half century and the announced 'Jihad', religious war, declared by Islamic Extremists, is just that, a declared War.

Refresh your memory about the killing of American Marines in Beirut, Lebanon, in several US Consulates around the world, the terrorist bombings in Bali and Indonesia and Spain and Great Britain and, oh, yes, the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people in the Twin Trade Towers in New York City.

One might share your disdain for the horrors of war; one might also recognize that defending this Nation against all threats, domestic and foreign, is the fundamental province of the Commander in Chief, the President, of this Nation.

Whether you believe it or not, there is and has been a continuing war perpetrated by Islamic Nations against the Infidels of the West. Without any atttempts to stop and/or contain this aggression, the entire Middle East might now be unified under extremist Islamic Rule and begin to expand, even more than it has, throughout Europe, Africa and Asia.

If the United States is not to take the lead in this 'war on terror', who, then should?

Amicus

In exactly which part of the drivel you posted are you enlightening or reminding me of anything?

Only a Government can declare War. By your standard, a high school football team who's pissed at their Coach can declare war by chanting "Death to Coach Smith".

You're blaming Obama for terrorist attacks over the past 50 years? How can I take you seriously?

You don't even know the proper definition of "Jihad". In Arabic, Jihad "is the Arabic for what can be variously translated as "struggle" or "effort," or "to strive," "to exert," "to fight," depending on the context..." Please note the lack of religious overtones in the above definition.

You want to refresh my memory about other attacks against American forces on foreign soil, which suggests that you presume that I ignored them when I mentioned 9/11.

And then you clearly ignore the fact that I mentioned 9/11 when you dare to remind me of it as well.

As to your final (and only) points:

I have never and will never claim that we don't have enemies in the Middle East, or in the Islamic World. But it is pretty damn clear that prior to our invasion of Iraq, that particular country wasn't a bastion for them. Most of the bad guys were then, and still are hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Dubya gave them 8 years to dig-in.

Don't mistake my distaste for War as an unwillingness to wage it, Amicus. There are many people who deserve to die for offenses against America. And I wouldn't hesitate for one second to give them their due. But for you to suggest that Dubya's administration even scratched the surface by sending forces to Iraq is laughable.

Obama is finally putting boots where they should've been 8 years ago... and you're bellyaching that it isn't easy. While you should be pissed off at Dubya for not doing it when it should've been done.

You're trying to paint me as a pansy, when in reality it's the people you support who took the easy way out and tried to sell a BS War to America.

Don't presume that speaking down to me again will afford you the same respect I've shown in this reply. You are clearly an offspring of the Pundits. If I thought for a second that you were speaking for yourself, I might give you a bit more credence - but you've already proven that you're unable to think for yourself and prefer to have others speak for you.

Quick reminder... unless and until you're able to get your facts straight - don't pretend that you're educating me about anything.

 

[amicus]

Gads, another hissyfit, all puffed up and spitting venom; must be Monday night Football?

According to your outrage, I need not remind you that the US attacked Afghanistan about two months after 9/11.

One cannot 'know' what might have happened had not the Bush administration acted as it did, but sooner or later you will have to stop the Bush bashing and actually think; or not.

Iraq and Iran may have gone to war again, but without the arms from either the Soviet Union or the USA, they might be reduced to throwing Figs at each other, eh?

Maybe they would have ganged up on Israel again, do you hate the Jews as much as you hate Bush?

It remains a distinct possiblity, admit it or not, that the changed foreign policy of the United States has modified the goals and intents of Islamic Terrorists and may indeed, be detrimental to world peace(thank you Sandra Bullock).

I thought the disgraceful years of the Clinton administration would never pass, but they did, eventually. So too will this abomination pass, but not soon enough to avert extreme duress on the nation I love.

Amicus(Ain't this fun?)

 

[Gavionn]

Gads, another hissyfit, all puffed up and spitting venom; must be Monday night Football?

According to your outrage, I need not remind you that the US attacked Afghanistan about two months after 9/11.

One cannot 'know' what might have happened had not the Bush administration acted as it did, but sooner or later you will have to stop the Bush bashing and actually think; or not.

Iraq and Iran may have gone to war again, but without the arms from either the Soviet Union or the USA, they might be reduced to throwing Figs at each other, eh?

Maybe they would have ganged up on Israel again, do you hate the Jews as much as you hate Bush?

It remains a distinct possiblity, admit it or not, that the changed foreign policy of the United States has modified the goals and intents of Islamic Terrorists and may indeed, be detrimental to world peace(thank you Sandra Bullock).

I thought the disgraceful years of the Clinton administration would never pass, but they did, eventually. So too will this abomination pass, but not soon enough to avert extreme duress on the nation I love.

Amicus(Ain't this fun?)

You call what we did in Afghanistan after 9/11 an "attack"? Really? More of an ineffectual bitch-slap if you ask me.

I've been thinking all along... too bad Bush II can't say the same. He made it easy to bash him and think at the same time... that hasn't changed. If you're suggesting that Iraq was the proper choice back in '02, you're more dillusional than I thought. You won't find a Military Strategist that agrees with you.

You deem the most successful President in modern US History to be a "disgrace". Ignoring his record of job-creation, and leaving the White House with the largest surplus in history... you're gonna bad mouth him for getting a blow job? On a site mostly dedicated to sexual freedom? Seriously?

Gav (yeah, it is)

 

[amicus]

Under the rules of Impeachment, Clinton was charged with Perjury, lying under oath. I could care less about him boinking some 22 year old intern under his control.

The so called 'surplus' was brought about by gutting the Military and the Intelligence Communities by 25% of their budgets and the full employment was less his doing than the Republican Majority in Congress following the 1994 elections.

His military weakness, to which Obama compares nicely, led to the loss of the USS Cole and his reaction in Libya was to toss a couple misguided missiles into a complex.

Obama, by his conciliatory speech in Cairo, his abridgement of the defensive missile installations to protect Poland and the Czech Republic, plus his desire to be 'liked' by the Iranian Dictator and others, is creating an atmosphere of a 'paper tiger' America that is going to begin withdrawing from the world scene.

Now, Gav, if you can restrain your rampant blustering, put aside your hatred of Bush and actually view the world scene as it is and was, then perhaps we can conduct a useful conversation.

I won't hold my breath.

Amicus

 

[Gavionn]

Under the rules of Impeachment, Clinton was charged with Perjury, lying under oath. I could care less about him boinking some 22 year old intern under his control.

The so called 'surplus' was brought about by gutting the Military and the Intelligence Communities by 25% of their budgets and the full employment was less his doing than the Republican Majority in Congress following the 1994 elections.

His military weakness, to which Obama compares nicely, led to the loss of the USS Cole and his reaction in Libya was to toss a couple misguided missiles into a complex.

Obama, by his conciliatory speech in Cairo, his abridgement of the defensive missile installations to protect Poland and the Czech Republic, plus his desire to be 'liked' by the Iranian Dictator and others, is creating an atmosphere of a 'paper tiger' America that is going to begin withdrawing from the world scene.

Now, Gav, if you can restrain your rampant blustering, put aside your hatred of Bush and actually view the world scene as it is and was, then perhaps we can conduct a useful conversation.

I won't hold my breath.

Amicus

Typical right-wing response. Everything bad that happened when you were in control of Congress is the Democratic President's fault. Everything good that happened is credited to your side. All of the above as seen from your perspective.

Clinton may have been guilty of perjury... but Bush and Cheney will eventually go down in history as commiting Treason. So hang on to that "perjury" thing while you can. Either way you swing it, it was a married guy lying about a blowjob. Not exactly the same as the "I don't recalls" of the Dubya Administration.

And for the record, I don't hate Bush. I just think he was a remarkably ineffectual President, a Puppet to Karl Rove and bitch to Dick Cheney.

And now I have to remind you that Bush II was warned specifically by the Clinton Administration that AQ was poised to strike in the US... probably using airliners as missiles, yet they ignored that warning...

Your Limbaugh/Hannity/Beck tactic of pretending that I'm "blustering" won't work on me, Amicus. I'm not a "dittohead".

Try this... just as an experiment. I know the idea fills you with dread and loathing, but just give it a shot. I think you'll like the feeling it generates:

Have an original thought.

 

[Huckleman2000]

The non-reaction to the Cole attack was BushCo's decision. From the 9/11 Commission Report, via wikiPedia,

According to Dr. Rice, the decision not to respond militarily to the Cole bombing was President Bush's. She said he "made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was 'tired of swatting flies.'" The administration instead began work on a new strategy to eliminate al-Qaeda.[26]