Meet the People Who Were Passed Over For Obama

[The Lady Kate]

That was the Flypaper Theory; our presence in Iraq is supposed to draw combatants into one place. While it may have succeeded in doing this, it does nothing to prevent further attacks at home.

So, we put our soldiers in harm's way for no reason than to be put in harm's way... on the off chance that once we draw every terrorist on the planet to one location, our troops will be able to wipe them out with ease, and all this will somehow protect us from domestic attacks?

Am I to understand that this theory was conceived by an adult, and not a 5th grader with ADHD?

 

[nvxplorer]

So, we put our soldiers in harm's way for no reason than to be put in harm's way... on the off chance that once we draw every terrorist on the planet to one location, our troops will be able to wipe them out with ease, and all this will somehow protect us from domestic attacks?

Am I to understand that this theory was conceived by an adult, and not a 5th grader with ADHD?

The theory has legitimate applications on the battlefield, but is useless in fighting worldwide terrorism.

 

[Christos Anesti]

2. To politically influence the future decisions Obama makes in regard to projecting American power around the world.

I think that is probably the case. By awarding it to the commander in chief of the most powerful military on earth they most likely hoped to influence his foreign policy in a more peaceful and conciliatory manner. I pray that it works. He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to bring the troops home from Iraq or Afghanistan unfortunately though. At least maybe this might convince him not to start another wasteful war in the Middle East by attacking Iran.

 

[DaisyDay]

I think that is probably the case. By awarding it to the commander in chief of the most powerful military on earth they most likely hoped to influence his foreign policy in a more peaceful and conciliatory manner. I pray that it works. He doesn't seem to be in any hurry to bring the troops home from Iraq or Afghanistan unfortunately though. At least maybe this might convince him not to start another wasteful war in the Middle East by attacking Iran.

He's already moved troops out of Iraq.

 

[Saving Hawaii]

That was the Flypaper Theory; our presence in Iraq is supposed to draw combatants into one place. While it may have succeeded in doing this, it does nothing to prevent further attacks at home.

I remember being a little confused about that one when it was first argued. That because we were in Iraq, all the terrorists would go there and blow themselves up there and they would forget that the place with the most Americans they could kill would be America... my dad argued that to me once.

I'm still confused about how that one makes sense.

 

[Christos Anesti]

He's already moved troops out of Iraq.

I'm grateful for that and I'm sure it's wonderful for the troops who were lucky enough to be among the small percentage sent home. We are still militarily occupying a foreign country though and I wont be celebrating until all our troops come home. I also think his "deadline" is a little vague to say the least. Notice that he talks about removing "combat" troops but not all troops and the deadline has enough "if, ands, and buts" to drive a tank through. I hate to be so skeptical but I will beleive it when I see it. When every single US military person and US mercenary (blackwater, etc) is out of Iraq I will give Obama a big congratulations.

 

[Gawron]

Gee, Christos, why not just deactivate the troops while we are at it? I mean, why bother to have combat troops if one is never willing to send them anywhere where there might be combat?

 

[FrenchAffair]

It's bad form. It's common sense that the US is not perfect. It goes without saying, and it's a negative, so why bring it up? A man's wife isn't perfect, but he doesn't go around giving speeches about how sorry he is that his wife makes mistakes and such. It's really disrespectful.

If a mans wife's "imperfections" (or in this case negligent and possibly criminally deliberate acts) caused the death of hundreds of thousands, the terror of millions and the brutalization of hundreds of millions I think he would be going around giving speeches about how sorry he is.

 

[Gawron]

Obama isn't apologizing for the delusions of the left, either here or abroad.

 

[SOAD]

If a mans wife's "imperfections" (or in this case negligent and possibly criminally deliberate acts) caused the death of hundreds of thousands, the terror of millions and the brutalization of hundreds of millions I think he would be going around giving speeches about how sorry he is.

I guess that some of us are not like he who apologizes for his mistakes to his maker but not his fellow man. It would be wrong to say that he is a shining beacon for his maker.

 

[FrenchAffair]

I guess that some of us are not like he who apologizes for his mistakes to his maker but not his fellow man. It would be wrong to say that he is a shining beacon for his maker.

America didn't murder God, it murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis among many other crimes. If Obama was to apologize for every criminal act of America he wouldn't have time to do anything else (and that assuming he is elected to a second term).

 

[SOAD]

Posted by The Lady Kate:

“Your question was meaningless.”

My question was valid. This is how you ignore such questions.

“The fact is that we destabilized a region ruled by an evil but blah blah blah hate bush hate bush hate bush I care so I am better than you are bow before what the world thinks.”

The broken record goes round and round,
Playing that broken same ole sound…..

(DISCLAIMER: The above quote represents the use of Satire, and is not intended to personally insult or attack the Lady Kate whom I love and respect with all my heart and every now and then we should all be able to have a little fun at our own expense but it will probably be used in an effort to get me banned just as some are using Limbaugh’s use of satire to get him banned from the airwaves.)

But seriously, prior to the invasion the terrorism was controlled under the offices of Sadam Hussein and his two wonderful sons. In other words, it was a state sanctioned tool of office. Is it your argument that Hussein “stabilized” the region? That if we hadn’t gone to Iraq the terrorist would all love us? They would have turned to building infrastructure in the desert instead of bombs?

Blargh…..

Another Bush apologist who believes America is the worlds police.

By the way, your satire was not good. It was actually insulting.

 

[exotic walrus]

My question was valid. This is how you ignore such questions.

Nah.

But seriously, prior to the invasion the terrorism was controlled under the offices of Sadam Hussein and his two wonderful sons.

Not the terrorism that occurred on 9/11.

Is it your argument that Hussein “stabilized” the region? That if we hadn’t gone to Iraq the terrorist would all love us? They would have turned to building infrastructure in the desert instead of bombs?

Blargh…..

Saddam didn't stabilise the region he stabilised Iraq which was a borderline first world country along many indices before you tore it apart.

 

[The Lady Kate]

(DISCLAIMER: The above quote represents the use of Satire,

Actually, it represents a complete inability to accept that George W. Bush did not walk on water.

and is not intended to personally insult or attack the Lady Kate whom I love and respect with all my heart and every now and then we should all be able to have a little fun at our own expense but it will probably be used in an effort to get me banned just as some are using Limbaugh’s use of satire to get him banned from the airwaves.)

Only problem is that Limbaugh is about as much of a satirist as you are... that is to say, not a particularly talented one.

It's actually very difficult to satirize conservatives... they don't find it funny and nobody else thinks it's a joke.

Perhaps if Limbaugh used a few wacky sound effects in his program, and did a few prank phone calls, people would lighten up and treat him more like the comedy act you claim he is?

But seriously, prior to the invasion the terrorism was controlled under the offices of Sadam Hussein and his two wonderful sons. In other words, it was a state sanctioned tool of office.

Controlled, how? There was never any proof that Saddam sponsored terrorism against the US.

Is it your argument that Hussein “stabilized” the region?

Under Saddam: Iraq opressed, but stable.

During Liberation: Everyone and his brother joing a militia to kill each other.

Do the math.

That if we hadn’t gone to Iraq the terrorist would all love us?

Is that what you think I'm saying? Do you even know what "stable" means?

They would have turned to building infrastructure in the desert instead of bombs?

They weren't building much of anything in the deserts of Iraq until we got there... a good portion of the weapons they were using agaisnt us came from our own depots and ammo dumps... which in the early days, had even less ssecurity than a public library.

I don't expect you to believe me, but you can google it for yourself... not that I expect you to do that either.

Blargh…..

Conservative discourse at its finest.

(DISCLAIMER: The above quote represents the use of Satire, and is not intended to personally insult or attack Gawron whom I... sorry, just can't say the rest with a straight face.)

 

[The Lady Kate]

Not the terrorism that occurred on 9/11.

Right... that terrorism was sponsored by our "allies."

 

[questftbest]

The Nobel prize is now a joke unless you give awards for reckless spending.

 

[DeathMagus]

The Nobel prize is now a joke unless you give awards for reckless spending.

I'll ask it again, because it seems to be lost.

You people are all aware of how and why the Nobel Peace Prize was started, right?

 

[Gawron]

Posted by SOAD:

“Another Bush apologist who believes America is the worlds police.”

I don’t believe America is the worlds police, I believe we are sometimes forced into it. Back before the invasion, would there even have been sanctions or weapons inspections if America had not lead the effort for such?

America's Destiny Is to Police the World

Quote:

This stirs up opposition on both the left and right, at home and abroad. Why should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe, critics wonder? To answer that question, start by asking, does the world need a constable? That is like asking whether London or New York needs a police force. As long as evil exists, someone will have to protect peaceful people from predators. The international system is no different in this regard from your own neighborhood, except that predators abroad are far more dangerous than ordinary robbers, rapists and murderers. They are, if given half a chance, mass robbers, mass rapists and mass murderers.

There are, to be sure, lots of international laws on the books prohibiting genocide, land mines, biological weapons and other nasty things. But without enforcement mechanisms, they are as meaningless as the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, which outlawed war as an instrument of national policy.

The hope of idealistic liberals for more than a century has been that some international organization would punish the wicked. But the League of Nations was a dismal failure, and the UN is not much better. It is hard to take seriously a body whose human rights commission is chaired by Libya and whose disarmament commission will soon be chaired by Iraq.

End Quote. Link: http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5559

Clinton played glob cop in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, and blasted Iraq every time Monica Lewinski went up to the hill to testify. It is an old game. What I believe is simple. If America is going to commit troops or go to war, fight it to win and then get out. But, the first casualty of war is often the battle plan. Or, as the historian Kolko once said:

“War, in essence, has always been an adventure intrinsically beset with surprises and false expectations, its total outcome unpredictable to all those who have engaged in it."

I have never been a "Bush apologist".

“By the way, your satire was not good.”

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it seems you missed the point.

Posted by exotic walrus:

“Saddam didn't stabilise the region he stabilised Iraq which was a borderline first world country along many indices before you tore it apart.”

Before we tore it apart? Well, war has a tendency to break things, but I hardly agree that the Iraqi people were better off under Hussein. And the UN was never going to take any real action against the guy. However, reconstruction has always been a part of America’s post war efforts, which is why these people are around, I suppose:

Quote:

SIGIR, the successor to the Coalition Provisional Authority Inspector General (CPA-IG), was created by Congress to provide oversight of the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF) and all obligations, expenditures, and revenues associated with reconstruction and rehabilitation activities in Iraq. SIGIR oversight is accomplished via independent audits, field inspections, and criminal investigations into potential fraud, waste, and abuse of funds.

End Quote. Here you will find a link to this book:

Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience

Since the March 2003 invasion, the Congress appropriated about $50 billion in taxpayer dollars for Iraq's relief and reconstruction. This generous provision funded a continuously evolving rebuilding program that sought, among other things, to restore Iraq's essential services, establish new security forces, create a free-market economy, and put the country on the path to achieving an effective democracy. Some of the initiatives succeeded but others did not. Hard Lessons, the first comprehensive account of the Iraq reconstruction effort, reviews in detail the United States' rebuilding program, shedding light on why certain programs worked while others fell short of goals.

Source: http://www.sigir.mil/

I don’t complain about the money spent to help the Iraqi people rebuild their country after the Hussein years and America’s intervention. Rebuilding is part of what we do.

 

[Gawron]

Posted by The Lady Kate:

“Actually, it represents a complete inability to accept that George W. Bush did not walk on water.”

Jesus walked on water. George Bush had his flaws. Where I agreed with him was on the issue of the nature of the enemy we face. He understood that nature, far too many in America do not.

In addition, search all of my post, please, and find where I ever stated that George Bush walked on water.

“Only problem is that Limbaugh is about as much of a satirist as you are... that is to say, not a particularly talented one.”

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I think you missed the point.

“It's actually very difficult to satirize conservatives... they don't find it funny and nobody else thinks it's a joke.”

The last seven words here are dead accurate.

“Perhaps if Limbaugh used a few wacky sound effects in his program, and did a few prank phone calls, people would lighten up and treat him more like the comedy act you claim he is?”

I did not state Limbaugh was a comedy act. This is simply how you wish everyone to view him. I said he used both satire and parody to help make his point. Most liberals can’t stand it, as with his Barak the Magic Negro bit, which was based on an article of that same title published in the LA Times written by a black pundit about then candidate Obama.

“There was never any proof that Saddam sponsored terrorism against the US.”

Is that the issue I brought up?

“Under Saddam: Iraq opressed, but stable.”

Under slavery, blacks oppressed, but stable. The logic here is a bit lacking, wouldn’t you agree? Although I agree that governed people often reap the government they deserve, either by voting for it or by acquiescing to that governments mandates.

During Liberation: Everyone and his brother joing a militia to kill each other.

Yep. Islamic Fundamentalism started with the Bush Administration. Oh, wait…..

Quote:

Most Westerners do not know that a century before the Crusades were initiated, Rome, the religious capital of Europe, had been besieged by Islam. They do not equate the four-hundred-fifty-year siege of Constantinople, the political capital of Christendom, with the Catholic response. Nor are most aware that Christians had been ruthlessly persecuted in the Holy Land and their churches had been burned by the Muslims who occupied the region. Further, the Crusaders were about the business of returning Jerusalem to the Byzantines who had the Holy Land stolen from them by Muslim mujahideen.

The city itself wasn't large or important strategically, militarily, or economically. But it was symbolic because Christian pilgrims traveled there and Jews lived there. And even though Jerusalem was 1500 miles from Rome, when we understand the conflict born out of Islam's desire to control it and the rest of the world, we'll better appreciate why these terrorists were continuing to lash out in frustration.

While I wrote extensively on the Crusades, condemning them in the context of Yahshua's prophetic Revelation letters in Yada Yahweh, they are but a pimple on a camel's behind when compared to the onslaught of the Islamic war machine that began ravaging the world in 622 CE - and never stopping. In Muhammad's last terrorist campaign, after pummeling every Jew within his reach and plundering every Arab worth robbing, Allah's Messenger assembled 30,000 mujahideen jihadists to attack the Byzantine civilian community of Tabuk. That assault, along with the conquest of Mecca, is described in the Qur'an's final surahs, the 9th and 5th. They define Islam - labeling any Muslim who does not fight "a hypocrite, worthy of death." These surahs also introduce the Jizyah tax, which the Qur'an says non-Muslims must pay in abject humility - or lose their lives. Islam's message was simple and direct: convert to Islam, pay the debilitating "protection" tax, or die.

Source: http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline_1000-Year_Crusade.Islam

Islamic terrorism and/or fundamentalism started long before there was either an America or an Israel. Sunni and Shia Muslims have been killing each other since, well, the death of Mohammed. In addition, the notion that countries which practice non-interference have nothing to fear from Islamic fundamentalism is naïve and requires we accept that all targets on the world stage are created equal. They are not.

“They weren't building much of anything in the deserts of Iraq until we got there”

They were building palaces for Hussein. But apparently you admit this has improved since we got there.

‘a good portion of the weapons they were using against us came from our own depots and ammo dumps…”

True, we sold them weapons.

“which in the early days, had even less security than a public library.”

Right….

“Conservative discourse at its finest.”

Sarcasm is a tool of satire. I guess at worst we are on equal footing.

 

[Gawron]

One more thing, as I have been pondering the situation.

Kate, I really meant no personal offense in my disclaimer, but in the spirit of civiilty, if you took some, I apologize.