Osama bin Laden is DEAD!

[rich12545]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ORIGINAL: rich12545
The Obama administration is very reluctant to admit waterboarding assisted in finding bin Laden for two reasons. It is diametrically opposed to that kind of interrogation and doesn't want to give it any credence. And that kind of intel would give some credit to Bush and Obama has gone out of his way to take all the credit. The media of course has gone along so you need to read a bit deeper to find the info on this.

Well that famous left-winger; John McCain; member of the senate armed services committee just stated 'enhanced interrogation'(torture) had nothing to do with OBLs capture, so give up the lie, will ya?

He's also a big supporter of...

ORIGINAL: rich12545
We might not be IN Libya but we're there. What in the world are we doing there? Why is it so important that we're there and not doing the same thing in Syria where the situation is equally as bad? How can Obama's foreign policy be anything but a mess? And how did he get the Nobel peace prize?

Apparently the only thing outmatching your fraudulence is your hypocrisy. We dropped a trillion dollars going into Iraq and you're going to criticize the expense of a few million to stop a massacre of people who unlike Iraqis, were actually fighting to remove their dictatorial leader whose own minister implicated him in terrorist acts that killed hundreds of Americans. You're an indoctrinated, Obama-hating tool.

macgregor, it seems you are incapable of debating without making personal attacks. That's typical from those on the left so I'm not surprised.

McCain is not a conservative. Far from it. Also, and I think because of his personal experience (understandable), he is against enhanced interrogation. So it's not surprising he made this statement.

I hadn't mentioned Iraq but you assumed......and you know what happens when you assume something. Unlike many democrats in congress, I've been against the Iraq war from the start. I am only in favor of wars that serve our national interest. That excludes Clinton's "wag the dog" Yugoslavia. It excludes Iraq. And it excludes Libya.

Funny, macgregor, how you simply ignore questions for which you have no answers. Like:

We might not be IN Libya but we're there. What in the world are we doing there? Why is it so important that we're there and not doing the same thing in Syria where the situation is equally as bad? How can Obama's foreign policy be anything but a mess? And how did he get the Nobel peace prize?

In Libya, ok some civilians are being massacred. So why aren't we in Syria and every other hot spot in the world? Give me an answer. Why are we in Libya and not Syria??????

And HOW did Obama get the Nobel peace prize??????? Do you think he deserved it???????

[Telumar]

Macgregor - assuming that the question you raised about why we err.. you are not in Syria was not rhetorical..:

Syria might be a "slightly" more delicate affair than Lybia. All kinds of possible escalations. Syria or Syria's regime is sitting like a spider in the middle eastern web. Hisbollah, Iran. Lebanon. Golan Heights. Relations to Turkey. Also there are Kurds in Syria. As in Turkey and as in Iraq. What would they do if Assad falls? Could have an impact on Turkey and Iraq as well. Sad but true, but in some fashion the Assad regime adds to regional stability. What would come after Assad? Bombing Syria would be like stiring up a hornet's nest.

Still doesn't explain why NATO/US is "in" Lybia (actually over Lybia ). But might help to understand why they are not in Syria.

I have heared various theories about why the west is "in" Lybia. Can't say if they're true, contain any facts or are plain CT. But you have to assume that Gadaffi did violate the rules of the game in some fashion... Remember that Sarkozy was one of the driving actors behind this. This maybe should be examined.. and ever heared about "Desertec"?

[rich12545]

Telumar, I think that question should have been addressed to me rather than macgregor.

My point was we shouldn't be in Libya let alone Syria.  We should be involved only where there is a clear national interest.  That's not Syria and it's certainly not Libya.  If we're going after dictators who abuse their citizens then let's attack North Korea.  At least there's a valid reason to do that.

I'd still like to see macgregor answer the questions I posed.  That is, if he's capable of doing so without personal attacks.  I'm just waiting for the next liberal gambit from him, using the race card. 

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: rich12545

My point was we shouldn't be in Libya let alone Syria.  We should be involved only where there is a clear national interest.  That's not Syria and it's certainly not Libya.  If we're going after dictators who abuse their citizens then let's attack North Korea.  At least there's a valid reason to do that.

I'm with you and might add that "we" shouldn't be in Iraq and Afghanistan, too.

I'm curious. What is this clear national interest? How would you define it?

[rich12545]

I disagree about being in Afghanistan.  But we should have gone in, completed the mission, and gotten out.  Afghanistan is now America's longest war with no end in sight except defeat.  The US was attacked from what was essentially an Afghan base.  Clearing that out to prevent future attacks represented a national interest.

As for defining it, I can give only a vague idea.  Something that gives a benefit of some sort to this country.  Yugoslavia gave no benefit.  Iraq gave no benefit.  Vietnam gave no benefit.  Afghanistan would have if it was done right.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: rich12545
I disagree about being in Afghanistan.  But we should have gone in, completed the mission, and gotten out.  Afghanistan is now America's longest war with no end in sight except defeat.  The US was attacked from what was essentially an Afghan base.  Clearing that out to prevent future attacks represented a national interest.

As for defining it, I can give only a vague idea.  Something that gives a benefit of some sort to this country.  Yugoslavia gave no benefit.  Iraq gave no benefit.  Vietnam gave no benefit.  Afghanistan would have if it was done right.

1) If the U.S. had gone into Afghanistan, kicked out the Taliban and OBL and then left, exactly what would have been accomplished? A power vacuum. It wouldn't have been long and the Taliban and OBL would have been back. That is not a stretch of the imagination, it's the most possible outcome.

2) The feel for the need to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein evolved in a funny kind of way. Well, maybe not so much funny as tragic.

After ass kicking #1 Hussein felt somewhat naked. He feared the Iranians more than the West. Because his army had been fairly stripped of strength he felt his best weapon was misinformation. He had to make it seem to the Iranians that even though his army had been crippled he still had the means to defend his country from Iranian intervention. At the same time he wanted the West to know that this was, indeed, a campaign of misinformation. So what did he do?

Saddam made it seem as though he had large stockpiles of WMD. Not publicly but covertly. It was done in such as way that the U.S. CIA agents in Iraq would see that this was just a ruse and there was nothing to it. However, the CIA had not infiltrated any of agencies Saddam had assumed they had. There was no way for the U.S. to think anything other than Iraq had large numbers of WMD and Saddam was doing his best to keep the UN and everyone else from finding them.

A very successful ruse on Saddam's part.

3) The Libyan fiasco somewhat follows both of the above. A whacko leader who has a leaning towards radicalism and terrorism who willingly supports terrorists and their training on his soil. Also the leader of a nation that truely does have WMD. If he were simply removed by a civil uprising who would fill the vacuum? The West would rather have some handle on the situation to prevent crazy things from happening. Their intervention is regretable but understandable.

Sorry, forgot Syria.

4) Have you ever played the game where blocks are stacked up and pull them out one at a time. It gets to the point where the wrong one will send the whole stack crumbling. That block is called Syria. Telumar is correct. You don't have to be in foreign service to understand. A simple map will show you how strategically important Syria is. A despot can maintain stability like no other leader and stability is vital. Nothing will ever be done as long as that stability is maintained. If it looks like things are going to hell there then, out of desperation, others will act just as was done in the UN Security Council with Libya. Do you think the abstaining nations refused a no vote by accident?

[macgregor]

When someone tries to paint Yugoslavia as 'wag the dog', the argument is already poisoned. That conflict was the most successful the US has fought since WW2. Any trouble from that conflict occurred by trying to send ground troops to police the area afterward.

By the 'Libyan' standard you set, we've been in Iraq since the first Gulf War. It wasn't costing us trillions of dollars and I'd argue it was highly successful. A hundred thousand less people would be dead there, and Saddam's lack of popularity would be approaching the level of a Ghadaffy-like insurgency, not to mention a US economy benefiting from an extra trillion dollars, 5000 servicemen with triple that not disabled for life, along with cheaper oil.

I'm willing to forgive military mistakes. What I won't forgive is the adamant refusal to learn from those mistakes. And some lessons could have been learned in Vietnam.

We have 2 conflicts going on at once in southern Asia. One, a highly successful campaign using drones and commandos when targets are available, and one that is such a failure that it all but negates our success by maintaining an occupation force in Afghanistan. We should have been out of there yesterday. But to not see the success of our air/drone/commando campaigns is military ignorance of the highest order, and politically based.

[Panama]

You really need to get into the habit of explaining what post you are replying to. Otherwise what you say sometimes seems like incoherant rambling. Not trying to be rude. Just trying to keep things in order and understand what is being said.

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Panama

You really need to get into the habit of explaining what post you are replying to. Otherwise what you say sometimes seems like incoherant rambling. Not trying to be rude. Just trying to keep things in order and understand what is being said.

I'm sorry if you find my post as incoherent ramblings, but you needn't try to understand this one. It's directed entirely at rich12545. I haven't even read your post yet.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

ORIGINAL: Panama

You really need to get into the habit of explaining what post you are replying to. Otherwise what you say sometimes seems like incoherant rambling. Not trying to be rude. Just trying to keep things in order and understand what is being said.

I'm sorry if you find my post as incoherent ramblings, but you needn't try to understand this one. It's directed entirely at rich12545. I haven't even read your post yet.

And that is the problem. No one is a mind reader here. So when you start typing and the right side says (in reply to XXX) it would seem you are replying to something that person said. Yet in the context of what they said it makes no sense. Therefore it seems like incoherant rambling. Just thought I'd point that out to avoid confusion. Just trying to help you out. [:D]

[rich12545]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

When someone tries to paint Yugoslavia as 'wag the dog', the argument is already poisoned. That conflict was the most successful the US has fought since WW2. Any trouble from that conflict occurred by trying to send ground troops to police the area afterward.

By the 'Libyan' standard you set, we've been in Iraq since the first Gulf War. It wasn't costing us trillions of dollars and I'd argue it was highly successful. A hundred thousand less people would be dead there, and Saddam's lack of popularity would be approaching the level of a Ghadaffy-like insurgency, not to mention a US economy benefiting from an extra trillion dollars, 5000 servicemen with triple that not disabled for life, along with cheaper oil.

I'm willing to forgive military mistakes. What I won't forgive is the adamant refusal to learn from those mistakes. And some lessons could have been learned in Vietnam.

We have 2 conflicts going on at once in southern Asia. One, a highly successful campaign using drones and commandos when targets are available, and one that is such a failure that it all but negates our success by maintaining an occupation force in Afghanistan. We should have been out of there yesterday. But to not see the success of our air/drone/commando campaigns is military ignorance of the highest order, and politically based.

You're having difficulty with the concept "national interest." We were in Yugoslavia for the same reason an aspirin factory was bombed. We had zero national interest in Yugoslavia and we have zero national interest in Libya. So why are we there??? To try out our drones and see how they work? If that's the case then let's go someplace where they can make a difference, like Iran. Libya is a tinpot country. Iran is a genuine threat to our national interest. To not see the difference is the height of ignorance. We should pick our wars against countries that are threats, not just because we can show off our military might.

[macgregor]

The only thing Yugoslavia and an aspirin factory have in common is that they were both attacked by Bill Clinton, but that's where the similarity ends. The aspirin factory may have been a CIA goof(nothing like the ones under the Bush administration however) but Yugoslavia was a NATO attack to stop genocide in Kosovo(learn it). It resulted in 0 US casualties and the expense was largely paid by our allies. We forced the withdrawal of the 4th strongest army in Europe. Is calling you an partisan considered name-calling or just stating a fact? I agree that Iran is a genuine threat. Did you read my post?

[JAMiAM]

Hi all,

This thread never really was about TOAW, was it? Being political, as well as wildly off-topic, I think it's had more than its fair share of running on. Please discuss this at some venue other than Matrix Games' forum. Thanks, and closed.