The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012 - Page 124

larrymcg421 · 10-21-2009, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Innocent until proven guilty, no?

Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that he was impeached. Andrew Johnson was also impeached, but not convicted.

DaddyTorgo · 10-21-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

My answer to this would be that at least the Repubs are giving away my money to people who create jobs, while the Dems want to give away all my money to people who have shown very little initiative to do anything with it other than throw it away. Sure, their spending indirectly creates jobs, but it's still a lousy investment.

Now, I'd rather find someone that gets government out of many of the businesses it has stuffed itself into (like the Libertarians if they'd shut down the insane side of their party, and for the record I HAVE voted Libertarian in some local races), but until we do I'll back the party that does less harm with the money they are wasting than the party that does more harm.

this goes back to the "supply-side economics" argument though, and it doesn't work. giving tax breaks to corporations and rich people doesn't result in markedly more jobs being created.

but we could have a whole thread just about supply-side economics. that wasn't my point in asking the question.

if the answer is "because i believe in supply-side economics" then okay, that's the answer. i just wanted to try to establish if it was that, or something else.

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

this goes back to the "supply-side economics" argument though, and it doesn't work. giving tax breaks to corporations and rich people doesn't result in markedly more jobs being created.

but we could have a whole thread just about supply-side economics. that wasn't my point in asking the question.

if the answer is "because i believe in supply-side economics" then okay, that's the answer. i just wanted to try to establish if it was that, or something else.

I didn't say I believed in it, and I didn't talk specifically about tax breaks. I'm saying that both sides take far more money from me than the government should need for the things it is involved in, I'd just rather my money go to corporations and people creating jobs than go out in hand-outs to folks who aren't helping the economy move along.

I'd rather they weren't taking so much of it in the first place, but I'd prefer what does get taken not go to promoting a culture of irresponsibility, laziness, and entitlement.

ace1914 · 10-21-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I didn't say I believed in it, and I didn't talk specifically about tax breaks. I'm saying that both sides take far more money from me than the government should need for the things it is involved in, I'd just rather my money go to corporations and people creating jobs than go out in hand-outs to folks who aren't helping the economy move along.

I'd rather they weren't taking so much of it in the first place, but I'd prefer what does get taken not go to promoting a culture of irresponsibility, laziness, and entitlement.

Isn't that what happened with the bailouts? We game ALL of our money to big banks who coincidently fund all of there corporations who "create jobs.". I've yet to see gains from that. Oh and don't forget your tax money that bailed out the auto industry who also "create jobs.". Giving money to insanely rich people doesn't work whether it's dems way ir repubs way. All rich people do is find a different way to hoard that money. They sure as he'll aren't going to give it back to me with a better paying job. Nothing personal gstelmack. But i really hate that flawed argument.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 10-21-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914

Isn't that what happened with the bailouts? We game ALL of our money to big banks who coincidently fund all of there corporations who "create jobs.". I've yet to see gains from that. Oh and don't forget your tax money that bailed out the auto industry who also "create jobs.". Giving money to insanely rich people doesn't work whether it's dems way ir repubs way. All rich people do is find a different way to hoard that money. They sure as he'll aren't going to give it back to me with a better paying job. Nothing personal gstelmack. But i really hate that flawed argument.

Neither the bank bailout nor the auto takeover would be in any way related to what gstelmack is talking about. Most conservatives were against both moves. It's easy to see how poor of a decision both of those moves were in hindsight. Both of those moves rewarded companies who were too lazy to fix the root issues involved with each industry. Good companies who are successful make tough decisions.

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914

Isn't that what happened with the bailouts? We game ALL of our money to big banks who coincidently fund all of there corporations who "create jobs.". I've yet to see gains from that. Oh and don't forget your tax money that bailed out the auto industry who also "create jobs.". Giving money to insanely rich people doesn't work whether it's dems way ir repubs way. All rich people do is find a different way to hoard that money. They sure as he'll aren't going to give it back to me with a better paying job. Nothing personal gstelmack. But i really hate that flawed argument.

And note I said I'd rather not give away any. Just if I'm supposed to choose between Dems handing out my money on deeply flawed entitlement programs and Repubs handing out my money to crooked corporations, I'll take the latter because at least they are giving SOMETHING back. We are asked to pick the lesser of two evils, and I told you why I'd pick my evil.

And yes I love Ford for refusing most of the bailout money and fixing their own problems.

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ace1914

Isn't that what happened with the bailouts?

And specifically on this, I am definitely of the opinion that the first bailout was Bush rewarding all his cronies. The last round, including Obama's Olympics trip, was him rewarding all HIS cronies. I have a pretty conservative family (even my relatives in Massachusetts

) and most of us hated what Bush did with that bailout.

KWhit · 10-21-2009, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Innocent until proven guilty, no?

I don't think you know what the word impeached means.

DaddyTorgo · 10-21-2009, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And note I said I'd rather not give away any. Just if I'm supposed to choose between Dems handing out my money on deeply flawed entitlement programs and Repubs handing out my money to crooked corporations, I'll take the latter because at least they are giving SOMETHING back. We are asked to pick the lesser of two evils, and I told you why I'd pick my evil.

And yes I love Ford for refusing most of the bailout money and fixing their own problems.

they don't give anything back though...

DaddyTorgo · 10-21-2009, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And specifically on this, I am definitely of the opinion that the first bailout was Bush rewarding all his cronies. The last round, including Obama's Olympics trip, was him rewarding all HIS cronies. I have a pretty conservative family (even my relatives in Massachusetts

) and most of us hated what Bush did with that bailout.

pretty sure that wasn't part of any sort of bailout or anything and we covered ad naseum in the Olympics thread that it is absolutely 100% standard operating procedure and indeed even necessary and expected these days for the heads-of-state of the countries that have cities under consideration, to be there in order to lobby aggressively for their city.

RainMaker · 10-21-2009, 03:20 PM

I don't think the bailouts were about anyone helping their cronies from either administration's perspective. There was massive backlash against both. I think it was about a couple guys showing up to his office and saying if we don't bail these companies out, you'll be the President to preside over a complete economic collapse.

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

they don't give anything back though...

We'll have to agree to disagree then. They spend a lot of money, they tip well, they hire folks, they contribute noticably to the economy, etc. If you don't think that's giving anything back, then we won't agree on the point.

RainMaker · 10-21-2009, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Are you talking to me? I'm on the record firmly as saying that al-Qaeda is now very busy hitting us over there rather than over here, and nothing has changed my mind on that.

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to attack a country that actually was housing Al-Qaeda? Instead of one that wasn't and just hoping they'd flood into the country?

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to attack a country that actually was housing Al-Qaeda? Instead of one that wasn't and just hoping they'd flood into the country?

So we're going to re-hash old debates again? I am not going to fight the "why we went into Iraq" argument all over again. I'm just saying that we're keeping the terrorists busy over there instead of over here, and I'm okay with that result.

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 03:35 PM

Look, I get it. Bush is evil, Obama is the second coming, all us Repubs should just jump on the Dem bandwagon and get this country moving forward. Blah blah blah blah blah.

molson · 10-21-2009, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to attack a country that actually was housing Al-Qaeda? Instead of one that wasn't and just hoping they'd flood into the country?

The best justification for the Iraq war (and it's not necessarily a good one, it's just the best one), is that we created a hell on earth in a place where a new regime would be beneficial anyway, and yet, a place where a war would have an air of "injustice" to it that would compel Al-Qaeda from all over the world to flock to the area for their holy war. Afghanistan, perhaps because it was too sympathetic a war, didn't quite fit the bill - we were there first, and it wasn't the terrorist magnet that Iraq was.

al-Zarqawi is one small example. He was drawn to Iraq (or at least, drawn to stay there), where he was killed. If not for the war, he might be plotting terrorist attacks in Jordan or somewhere today.

How much did Iraq distract and occupy the time and resources of Al-Qaeda? Where would that energy and those resources go if not for that war? Then if Iraq continues to stabilize and is someday a successful democracy - that's just gravy.

I certainly wish we had a crazy-advanced text-sim that would sim the world with and without the Iraq war, etc. But there's really no way to know, without it, where'd we'd be. It could turn out to be beneifical for us and world, even if the real reasons behind were grossly misguided.

JPhillips · 10-21-2009, 03:47 PM

How do to deal with the fact that during the most of the Iraq war/occupation global terror attacks by AQ and affiliates went up? If we were forcing AQ to flock to Iraq how did they attack Bali, Indonesia, London, Madrid, etc.?

All of these terror attacks, and 9/11, take so few people that it's very hard to believe we could ever distract a high enough percentage to ensure our safety.

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

How do to deal with the fact that during the most of the Iraq war/occupation global terror attacks by AQ and affiliates went up? If we were forcing AQ to flock to Iraq how did they attack Bali, Indonesia, London, Madrid, etc.?

All of these terror attacks, and 9/11, take so few people that it's very hard to believe we could ever distract a high enough percentage to ensure our safety.

How many AQ attacks have occurred on US soil since? And London and Madrid were a while ago. Basically they've had to pull their horns in closer and closer.

Terrorists need a safe base of operations to work from. At the moment that's Pakistan, and it's pretty shaky.

JPhillips · 10-21-2009, 04:04 PM

But as violence has decreased in Iraq worldwide terror attacks attributed to AQ and affiliates has gone down. There's no evidence that violence in Iraq meant less chance of terror attacks. If you're only going to judge based on U.S. attacks during the past eight years how do you reconcile that the same could be said at the end of the Clinton years?

All of the post hoc justification of Iraq based on a flypaper theory has no evidence whatsoever to validate it.

edit: There's plenty of potential safe havens for terrorists today from Africa to the Middle East to Central Asia to parts of the Phillipines.

molson · 10-21-2009, 04:07 PM

If after 9/11, someone told you that Bush would be president for another 7 years and there wouldn't be another attack on U.S. soil, that would be considered a pretty huge victory and accomplishment.

It's a fair argument that the administration did more than was necessary for that outcome, at the expense of civil liberties and lives. But we can never know for sure. It's like the stimulus package. We'll get out of the recession - but we'll never really know if it the cost endured was necessary.

flere-imsaho · 10-21-2009, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I'm just saying that we're keeping the terrorists busy over there instead of over here

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But as violence has decreased in Iraq worldwide terror attacks attributed to AQ and affiliates has gone down. There's no evidence that violence in Iraq meant less chance of terror attacks. If you're only going to judge based on U.S. attacks during the past eight years how do you reconcile that the same could be said at the end of the Clinton years?

All of the post hoc justification of Iraq based on a flypaper theory has no evidence whatsoever to validate it.

I disagree. We had a ratcheting up of terrorist attacks on US targets throughout the 90s, both here and overseas. There has been a marked dropoff since we sent the military back in there.

As for post hoc justification of Iraq, as I said we'll rehash old ground. All the 20-20 hindsight folks look back and say there was no reason to go, when at the time we got a resolution through congress, including folks who served under Clinton and were worried back then about the Hussein regime, a guy who had consistently shown a tendency to go after his neighbors. You guys want to just brush all that aside based on later revelations and ignore what the situation was at the time, including the fact that we could not afford to take ANY chances anymore (Hussein could have been open with inspectors, but wasn't, and paid the price). We disagree and you want to keep arguing it.

Fine, you guys don't agree with my economic or foreign policy reasons. How about that twice now we've had a popular Democratic president swept into office with a majority in Congress promising to change things in Washington, and once again they are showing themselves to be exactly the same as everybody that's gone before, keeping their popularity by offering handouts to buy votes to support themselves.

I've said over and over it's not like I'm in love with the Republican party or how they handle things, but I like the Dems even less. So I go Republican.

JPhillips · 10-21-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

If after 9/11, someone told you that Bush would be president for another 7 years and there wouldn't be another attack on U.S. soil, that would be considered a pretty huge victory and accomplishment.

It's a fair argument that the administration did more than was necessary for that outcome, at the expense of civil liberties and lives. But we can never know for sure. It's like the stimulus package. We'll get out of the recession - but we'll never really know if it the cost endured was necessary.

It's a much different thing to say the homeland was safe for eight years and some measure of credit should go the the Bush admin, than the Iraq War is responsible for keeping us safe.

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm curious as to what evidence you have that supports that claim, as opposed to evidence that contradicts it:

2008 United States consulate in Istanbul attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So you found one attack on what is considered US soil, although not actually over here but rather close to the region in question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

2004 financial buildings plot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We're foiling plots now at a pretty good clip. How exactly does this help your case? They don't have a safe haven making it much more dangerous for them to operate.

molson · 10-21-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Looks like a lot of security and intelligence failures in those countries (except the for the ones you posted that involved U.S. soil or planes, which are the four in your list that were thwarted.) Maybe those other countries should try the PATRIOT Act.

RainMaker · 10-21-2009, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

If after 9/11, someone told you that Bush would be president for another 7 years and there wouldn't be another attack on U.S. soil, that would be considered a pretty huge victory and accomplishment.

It's a fair argument that the administration did more than was necessary for that outcome, at the expense of civil liberties and lives. But we can never know for sure. It's like the stimulus package. We'll get out of the recession - but we'll never really know if it the cost endured was necessary.

I agree with the terrorist attack accomplishment. But if you also told me that we'd currently be in two dead end wars, Bin Laden still alive, and riding out one of the worst financial collapses in the last 80 years, I'd be as surprised as well.

molson · 10-21-2009, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's a much different thing to say the homeland was safe for eight years and some measure of credit should go the the Bush admin, than the Iraq War is responsible for keeping us safe.

I'm just saying as a whole, the security policy was successful. The debate is whether the cost was too high, which is a fair debate, but one that can never be resolved.

JPhillips · 10-21-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

I disagree. We had a ratcheting up of terrorist attacks on US targets throughout the 90s, both here and overseas. There has been a marked dropoff since we sent the military back in there.

As for post hoc justification of Iraq, as I said we'll rehash old ground. All the 20-20 hindsight folks look back and say there was no reason to go, when at the time we got a resolution through congress, including folks who served under Clinton and were worried back then about the Hussein regime, a guy who had consistently shown a tendency to go after his neighbors. You guys want to just brush all that aside based on later revelations and ignore what the situation was at the time, including the fact that we could not afford to take ANY chances anymore (Hussein could have been open with inspectors, but wasn't, and paid the price). We disagree and you want to keep arguing it.

Fine, you guys don't agree with my economic or foreign policy reasons. How about that twice now we've had a popular Democratic president swept into office with a majority in Congress promising to change things in Washington, and once again they are showing themselves to be exactly the same as everybody that's gone before, keeping their popularity by offering handouts to buy votes to support themselves.

I've said over and over it's not like I'm in love with the Republican party or how they handle things, but I like the Dems even less. So I go Republican.

It's not opinion that terrorist attacks increased worldwide, it's State Department statistics. Even if you limit it to U.S. targets you can't exclude civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Again, there is no evidence that a fly paper theory actually resulted in fewer terrorist attacks.

As for the rest, stop feeling persecuted. The only reason we're arguing this is because you started it. I said at the time I could have supported military action, but after Bush requested no rebuilding funds for Afghanistan in 2003 I figured they'd just fuck things up without a plan for fixing it. As it turns out I feel pretty good about that reasoning.

RainMaker · 10-21-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

The best justification for the Iraq war (and it's not necessarily a good one, it's just the best one), is that we created a hell on earth in a place where a new regime would be beneficial anyway, and yet, a place where a war would have an air of "injustice" to it that would compel Al-Qaeda from all over the world to flock to the area for their holy war. Afghanistan, perhaps because it was too sympathetic a war, didn't quite fit the bill - we were there first, and it wasn't the terrorist magnet that Iraq was.

al-Zarqawi is one small example. He was drawn to Iraq (or at least, drawn to stay there), where he was killed. If not for the war, he might be plotting terrorist attacks in Jordan or somewhere today.

How much did Iraq distract and occupy the time and resources of Al-Qaeda? Where would that energy and those resources go if not for that war? Then if Iraq continues to stabilize and is someday a successful democracy - that's just gravy.

I certainly wish we had a crazy-advanced text-sim that would sim the world with and without the Iraq war, etc. But there's really no way to know, without it, where'd we'd be. It could turn out to be beneifical for us and world, even if the real reasons behind were grossly misguided.

So a plan was created to justify a war by saying Iraq had WMDs, then blow it up and purposely screw up the backend of the war so that terrorists could freely enter Iraq and kill tons of innocent civlians and U.S? This was the plan from the start?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and still doesn't. The fact we haven't been hit is not because of the war in Iraq. If people want to argue it's the Patriot Act, war in Afghanistan, CIA, FBI, etc, I'm down with that. But saying that us going into Iraq and botching up a war in a country that was not related to terrorism is far fetched.

JPhillips · 10-21-2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

I'm just saying as a whole, the security policy was successful. The debate is whether the cost was too high, which is a fair debate, but one that can never be resolved.

But again, by that logic you'd also have to say that not invading Iraq and Afghanistan was successful from WTC bombing until 9/10. You can't prove causation in relation to Iraq.

molson · 10-21-2009, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

You can't prove causation in relation to Iraq.

Of course not, that's my point - you also can't prove the opposite, that Iraq wasn't beneficial.

molson · 10-21-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So a plan was created to justify a war by saying Iraq had WMDs, then blow it up and purposely screw up the backend of the war so that terrorists could freely enter Iraq and kill tons of innocent civlians and U.S? This was the plan from the start?

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and still doesn't. The fact we haven't been hit is not because of the war in Iraq. If people want to argue it's the Patriot Act, war in Afghanistan, CIA, FBI, etc, I'm down with that. But saying that us going into Iraq and botching up a war in a country that was not related to terrorism is far fetched.

I have no idea what the plan from the start was, I'm just talking about post-war justifications. So justification probably isn't even the right word.

There were probably multiple, conflicting plans from the start.

flere-imsaho · 10-21-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

So you found one attack on what is considered US soil, although not actually over here but rather close to the region in question.

As usual, it's always about "U.S. soil".

All I'm saying is that it's pretty blinkered to make the statement that we're "keeping them busy in Iraq" when there's a long list of incidents one can cite that are a) Al-Qaeda related and b) happen all over the globe (i.e. not just in Iraq).

While the Iraq War may have had an effect (an in fact there's evidence to show that it may have helped Al Qaeda, not harmed it), it seems a bit logically weak to say it's the sole, or even main, reason there have been no successful attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 (which, of course, ignores successful attacks elsewhere, as if they have no relevance to the topic).

Quote:

We're foiling plots now at a pretty good clip. How exactly does this help your case?

You said we're "keeping them busy over there". Every foiled attack shows that this is not the case.

If you said the Iraq War "makes it harder for them to be successful over here", then maybe you'd have a stronger case, but only if you leave out a) every other factor that makes it harder for them to attack U.S. soil now and b) the fact that they have continued to execute successful attacks elsewhere.

The history of counter-terrorism in the 21st century does not boil down to:

1. Attack Iraq
2. ???
3. Profit!

JPhillips · 10-21-2009, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

Of course not, that's my point - you also can't prove the opposite, that Iraq wasn't beneficial.

I think the burden rests with those that killed tens of thousands, wounded tens of thousands and left a million or more displaced. If the best that can be argued is you can't prove it didn't work, that makes my point, IMO.

flere-imsaho · 10-21-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

Looks like a lot of security and intelligence failures in those countries (except the for the ones you posted that involved U.S. soil or planes, which are the four in your list that were thwarted.) Maybe those other countries should try the PATRIOT Act.

Way to miss the point.

The number of attacks to reach the execution stage shows the extent to which Al Qaeda can continue to operate on a global scale (and even on U.S. soil), despite the extent to which we're "keeping them busy" in Iraq.

flere-imsaho · 10-21-2009, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

I'm just saying as a whole, the security policy was successful. The debate is whether the cost was too high, which is a fair debate, but one that can never be resolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

Of course not, that's my point - you also can't prove the opposite, that Iraq wasn't beneficial.

I'm not sure if you're talking about Iraq or the PATRIOT Act, or just conflating the two, but here's one measure:

2,974: U.S. citizens & foreign nationals (not including terrorists) killed on 9/11
4,669: Iraq Coalition casualties to date

RainMaker · 10-21-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by molson

Of course not, that's my point - you also can't prove the opposite, that Iraq wasn't beneficial.

You also can't prove that me moving down the street from a Mexican restaurant in 2004 and subsequently eating at it once a week which caused massive gas problems wasn't the reason for no terrorist attacks in this country.

Both are unfalsifiable claims and should not be used to try and proof something.

molson · 10-21-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I'm not sure if you're talking about Iraq or the PATRIOT Act, or just conflating the two, but here's one measure:

2,974: U.S. citizens & foreign nationals (not including terrorists) killed on 9/11
4,669: Iraq Coalition casualties to date

The number you don't have as part of that equation is the casualties from terrorist attacks if the Iraq War (or the Patriot Act) didn't happen.

You can argue that that number is zero, all I'm saying is that we don't know that number for sure. That's where the meaningful debate is.

I'm trying to look at the war from a historical, practical perspective, not just the from the view of the vengeful/blame game that most discussions about this revolve arround. The war could have have been misguided, reckless, and criminal - that doesn't neccesarily mean that U.S. and the world didn't/can't benefit from it in some way, taking account of the high cost.

molson · 10-21-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Way to miss the point.

The number of attacks to reach the execution stage shows the extent to which Al Qaeda can continue to operate on a global scale (and even on U.S. soil), despite the extent to which we're "keeping them busy" in Iraq.

The usual argument is that that Bush overdid things post 9/11, and that point is supported by the lack of known terrorist threats. That's certainly been argued here, I can't remember if it was you.

CamEdwards · 10-21-2009, 05:53 PM

can someone PM me when the talk returns to the Obama administration?

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

As usual, it's always about "U.S. soil".

Of course it is. Aside from England, who else around the world wanted to actually help us?

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

All I'm saying is that it's pretty blinkered to make the statement that we're "keeping them busy in Iraq" when there's a long list of incidents one can cite that are a) Al-Qaeda related and b) happen all over the globe (i.e. not just in Iraq).

I don't really care about all over the globe. I care about my safety and security. They started a war, we've taken it back to their home turf. Europe had a couple of issues which are now under control, and now they're back carrying out attacks in their own backyard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

While the Iraq War may have had an effect (an in fact there's evidence to show that it may have helped Al Qaeda, not harmed it), it seems a bit logically weak to say it's the sole, or even main, reason there have been no successful attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 (which, of course, ignores successful attacks elsewhere, as if they have no relevance to the topic).

You said we're "keeping them busy over there". Every foiled attack shows that this is not the case.

If you said the Iraq War "makes it harder for them to be successful over here", then maybe you'd have a stronger case, but only if you leave out a) every other factor that makes it harder for them to attack U.S. soil now and b) the fact that they have continued to execute successful attacks elsewhere.

They are having a much harder time carrying out SUCCESSFUL attacks, and we are killing them off at a pretty reasonable clip right now since we've carried the war to them. What we've done is taken away their secure bases, and this has stirred up a hornet's nest that is now having trouble doing much more than attack targets near them. Sure, it got a bit worse right away (look at the times on your successful attacks above and see them petering out) and is now much better, at least for US citizens who aren't in the war zone.

And FWIW, I'd argue that most of the things that have made the war on terror successful are things the Dems and supporters have argued strongly to shut down, and curiously that Obama has decided not to shut down since he's actually taken office.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

The history of counter-terrorism in the 21st century does not boil down to:

1. Attack Iraq
2. ???
3. Profit!

No one said it was.

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

As for the rest, stop feeling persecuted. The only reason we're arguing this is because you started it.

B.S. This whole thing started with someone asking how we could possibly support Republicans in this day and age, and I gave my reasons. You guys decided to gangbang the reasons. I said when I mentioned the Iraq thing that you guys wouldn't agree and it wasn't worth debating AGAIN, yet you guys decided to debate it AGAIN. I feel more secure since we've carried the war to them, you don't, and you want to attack all the things that do make me more secure.

What I love is the secure knowledge so many of you feel that with the tiny bit of national security info the press (a regularly shown to be lying press) feeds you, you know everything about the world situation and the war on terror. Forgive me if I put a bit more faith in the people that have a ton more info than any of the rest of us do. And note that most Dems that have had access to this, including the sitting president, haven't felt a really need to do much more than bluster when it's politically expedient to. Obama extended the Patriot Act with minor revisions, can't shut down Guantanamo, extended Rendition, etc etc etc. He may be making some progress to eventually pulling out of Iraq, I'll give you that.

gstelmack · 10-21-2009, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And note that most Dems that have had access to this, including the sitting president, haven't felt a really need to do much more than bluster when it's politically expedient to. Obama extended the Patriot Act with minor revisions, can't shut down Guantanamo, extended Rendition, etc etc etc. He may be making some progress to eventually pulling out of Iraq, I'll give you that.

There you go Cam!

JPhillips · 10-21-2009, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

B.S. This whole thing started with someone asking how we could possibly support Republicans in this day and age, and I gave my reasons. You guys decided to gangbang the reasons. I said when I mentioned the Iraq thing that you guys wouldn't agree and it wasn't worth debating AGAIN, yet you guys decided to debate it AGAIN. I feel more secure since we've carried the war to them, you don't, and you want to attack all the things that do make me more secure.

But that's like me saying:

"Republicans are douchebags. I know some of you don't agree, but let's not argue this again."

Once you lay out a political point, in a political thread, you have to expect a political response. If you don't want to debate the war, don't mention it.

Kodos · 10-21-2009, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstelmack

My answer to this would be that at least the Repubs are giving away my money to people who create jobs, while the Dems want to give away all my money to people who have shown very little initiative to do anything with it other than throw it away. Sure, their spending indirectly creates jobs, but it's still a lousy investment.

Now, I'd rather find someone that gets government out of many of the businesses it has stuffed itself into (like the Libertarians if they'd shut down the insane side of their party, and for the record I HAVE voted Libertarian in some local races), but until we do I'll back the party that does less harm with the money they are wasting than the party that does more harm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kodos

Where does the war in Iraq fit on the more harm/less harm scale?

My point was, the war in Iraq was extremely expensive both in monetary costs and human lives lost (not to mention the immense damage it did to our credibility in the eyes of other nations worldwide). Thousands of Americans dying over in Iraq doesn't feel any better to me than thousands dying on U.S. soil. People dying for a sham of a war is far more costly in my mind than spending money on programs that I may not support. At some point, money is just money. I don't like taxes, but I can live with them. Lost lives can never be replaced, and families that have lost loved ones can never be compensated for their losses.

And if you're that concerned with being fiscally responsible, perhaps avoiding flushing trillions down the toilet in Iraq would have been a good place to become budget conscious. If you can find a justification for a war where we were blatantly misled and manipulated by our own President, more power to you I guess. Me, I can't help but think about how many more people would likely still be alive had Gore won the 2000 election.

panerd · 10-21-2009, 09:52 PM

Why I keep appearing in this thread baffles not only you guys but also me. I know I sound like a broken record but once somebody answers my question I will be satisfied. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why does it have to be programs I don't like versus a war I don't like? Or health care I don't want versus corporate welfare I don't want? Or social progress versus free enterprise? There is a political party that encompasses both ideologies. You guys unintentionally argue in favor of it in every single post. But the mass media and politicians themselves have somehow convinced you it's not viable. Why continue to be manipulated by the system? A third party vote is only a wasted vote becuase politicians have convinced you of this.

Greyroofoo · 10-22-2009, 02:21 AM

Greyroofoo · 10-22-2009, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Actually, in a first past the post system, a vote to a third party in a close election, especially one involving electoral votes is sort of throwing it away. The smartest thing to do is to effect changes within the two largest parties. It's why I'm a Democrat and not a member of the Green party or something else.

Being a member of the two primary parties means you do not affect(effect?) change at all. It just means you're a tool that enables corporate lobbyists to decide policy.

I'm hope you're proud of yourself.

And by hope I mean that I hope you die a horrible death by means that involves trout and anuses.

Mizzou B-ball fan · 10-22-2009, 07:14 AM

More of the same attacks from Democrats. I don't inherently have an issue with the program itself or the slant that Ed obviously has on his programs and other programs on MSNBC. They're doing nothing different than Fox News in that regard, which is fine IMO. But the hypocrisy from the administration, the representative being interviewed, and liberal supporters that Fox News is not a legitimate news source when MSNBC takes a similar slant the other way and receive no criticism is silly at best.

Grayson: Fox News Is "The Enemy Of America" (VIDEO)

Ronnie Dobbs2 · 10-22-2009, 07:32 AM

There's really only one way that a feud of this magnitude will be settled.

Between the cold bars of the steel cage.

View Poll Results: How is Obama doing? (poll started 6/6)
Great - above my expectations	18	6.87%
Good - met most of my expectations	66	25.19%
Average - so so, disappointed a little	64	24.43%
Bad - sold us out	101	38.55%
Trout - don't know yet	13	4.96%
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll

10-21-2009, 03:35 PM	#6165
gstelmack Pro Starter Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Cary, NC	Look, I get it. Bush is evil, Obama is the second coming, all us Repubs should just jump on the Dem bandwagon and get this country moving forward. Blah blah blah blah blah. __________________ -- Greg -- Author of various FOF utilities

10-21-2009, 03:47 PM	#6167
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	How do to deal with the fact that during the most of the Iraq war/occupation global terror attacks by AQ and affiliates went up? If we were forcing AQ to flock to Iraq how did they attack Bali, Indonesia, London, Madrid, etc.? All of these terror attacks, and 9/11, take so few people that it's very hard to believe we could ever distract a high enough percentage to ensure our safety. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

10-21-2009, 04:04 PM	#6169
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	But as violence has decreased in Iraq worldwide terror attacks attributed to AQ and affiliates has gone down. There's no evidence that violence in Iraq meant less chance of terror attacks. If you're only going to judge based on U.S. attacks during the past eight years how do you reconcile that the same could be said at the end of the Clinton years? All of the post hoc justification of Iraq based on a flypaper theory has no evidence whatsoever to validate it. edit: There's plenty of potential safe havens for terrorists today from Africa to the Middle East to Central Asia to parts of the Phillipines. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers Last edited by JPhillips : 10-21-2009 at 04:05 PM.

10-21-2009, 04:07 PM	#6170
molson General Manager Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: The Mountains	If after 9/11, someone told you that Bush would be president for another 7 years and there wouldn't be another attack on U.S. soil, that would be considered a pretty huge victory and accomplishment. It's a fair argument that the administration did more than was necessary for that outcome, at the expense of civil liberties and lives. But we can never know for sure. It's like the stimulus package. We'll get out of the recession - but we'll never really know if it the cost endured was necessary. Last edited by molson : 10-21-2009 at 04:08 PM.

10-21-2009, 03:20 PM	#6161
RainMaker Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Chicago, IL	I don't think the bailouts were about anyone helping their cronies from either administration's perspective. There was massive backlash against both. I think it was about a couple guys showing up to his office and saying if we don't bail these companies out, you'll be the President to preside over a complete economic collapse.

10-21-2009, 05:53 PM	#6190
CamEdwards Stadium Announcer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Burke, VA	can someone PM me when the talk returns to the Obama administration? __________________ I don't want the world. I just want your half.

10-21-2009, 09:52 PM	#6196
panerd Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: St. Louis	Why I keep appearing in this thread baffles not only you guys but also me. I know I sound like a broken record but once somebody answers my question I will be satisfied. Why does it have to be one or the other? Why does it have to be programs I don't like versus a war I don't like? Or health care I don't want versus corporate welfare I don't want? Or social progress versus free enterprise? There is a political party that encompasses both ideologies. You guys unintentionally argue in favor of it in every single post. But the mass media and politicians themselves have somehow convinced you it's not viable. Why continue to be manipulated by the system? A third party vote is only a wasted vote becuase politicians have convinced you of this.

10-22-2009, 02:21 AM	#6197
Greyroofoo Pro Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Alabama

10-22-2009, 07:14 AM	#6199
Mizzou B-ball fan General Manager Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Kansas City, MO	More of the same attacks from Democrats. I don't inherently have an issue with the program itself or the slant that Ed obviously has on his programs and other programs on MSNBC. They're doing nothing different than Fox News in that regard, which is fine IMO. But the hypocrisy from the administration, the representative being interviewed, and liberal supporters that Fox News is not a legitimate news source when MSNBC takes a similar slant the other way and receive no criticism is silly at best. Grayson: Fox News Is "The Enemy Of America" (VIDEO)

10-22-2009, 07:32 AM	#6200
Ronnie Dobbs2 Pro Rookie Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Bahston Mass	There's really only one way that a feud of this magnitude will be settled. Between the cold bars of the steel cage. __________________ There's no I in Teamocil, at least not where you'd think

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 25 (0 members and 25 guests)