Obama calls for halt to Gitmo prosecutions.

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

If Mr. Bush's predecessor (yet another Democrat) had done his job, and not have taken the "sweep it under the rug" approach to the few terrorist attacks on his watch, 9/11 most likely would never have happened.

Bull. It's the ole, Clinton's Fault trick that repubs love to use when Bush is under political fire.

Every Single One of these Anti-Terror policies were reactionary. Bush had a year to enact whatever he wanted to "Protect Us" And that would not have done a damn thing.

I like how the new fear tactic the freeps use. That Obama making all these decisions will lead to Osama (Even tho he is nothing but a PR image now) or some other wackjob to attack america. Almost to the point where they hope it will happen. (And don't tell me some of the deeper right wing wackos don't)

Like I said, Get new material. And no the Bear reference went out a decade ago.

In case you have not noticed. We are the laughing stock of the world. What good would they get from hitting us? It would unite the world against them again. They've won in Iraq, They will wait patiently for decades if they have to but the moment we are finally out of that hellhole they will get oggles of money from China and Iran for their oil assets.

Want to defeat them? Get us the HELL out of this dependance on their oil. That is the only way. Not gitmo, Not constant war, not Patriot act 2.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

Bull. It's the ole, Clinton's Fault trick that repubs love to use when Bush is under political fire.

Every Single One of these Anti-Terror policies were reactionary. Bush had a year to enact whatever he wanted to "Protect Us" And that would not have done a damn thing.

I like how the new fear tactic the freeps use. That Obama making all these decisions will lead to Osama (Even tho he is nothing but a PR image now) or some other wackjob to attack america. Almost to the point where they hope it will happen. (And don't tell me some of the deeper right wing wackos don't)

Like I said, Get new material. And no the Bear reference went out a decade ago.

In case you have not noticed. We are the laughing stock of the world. What good would they get from hitting us? It would unite the world against them again. They've won in Iraq, They will wait patiently for decades if they have to but the moment we are finally out of that hellhole they will get oggles of money from China and Iran for their oil assets.

Want to defeat them? Get us the HELL out of this dependance on their oil. That is the only way. Not gitmo, Not constant war, not Patriot act 2.

This is the one that really strikes the nerve of you guys. Because you know it's true. I know you don't realize it, or you have just conveniently forgotten how many terrorist attacks occured during Clinton's reign. And the unfocused and impotent responses to each occurence. It's really too bad Clinton did not pursue terrorism as the threat that it is. Ultimately the threat was able to build up to the point that the WTC was destroyed on 9/11. During the Clinton era, the terrorist element struck the WTC as well in 1993. People died there and many were injured. Yes, Mr. Clinton was derelict in his duty. And the culmination of Clinton's policies of appeasement ended on October 12, 2000 with the USS Cole attack. The terrorist element was stronger and bolder after the end of 8 years of virtually impotent responses to their vile acts. Nothing you can do to alleviate that fact. It is a matter of historical record. No amount of liberal "faith" can remove it. It is what it is. But I do enjoy the spin you provide. But that's all it is.....excuses and spin. Typical.

The material is all relevant to today. So no "new material" is required. And the facts are inescapable for you. In terms of being a laughing stock....I thought we were loved now that the annointed "One" has been elected. What happened Zach? On a more serious note, when it comes to our national security, opinions of other nations mean squat to me. Good or bad. I like cooperation and mutual trust among allied nations. But our national security concerns should not seek approval from the whiners before we carry out whatever we need to, to ensure the peace and security of our people. Obviously, our newly elected government currently gives more priority to seeking approval from other nations prior to acting in defense of this country, national security comes after that. Been there, done that. Unfortunately that does nothing to truly secure our people's lives or interests, and proves you pay no attention to historical precedents.

They've won in Iraq,

I've heard of liberal revisionist history, but this is beyond the scope of reality. Last time I checked we've pretty much routed every single terrorist element in Iraq. We control everything but one tiny area. Iraq is now a self governing nation as well. The focus now goes to Afghanistan.

What good would they get from hitting us? It would unite the world against them again.

Sometimes I think libs just say things that sound nice and pretty, but don't truly understand anything that they say. They've hit us multiple times in the 90's. And are waiting to do it again. Your problem is you want a unified world that sings Kumbaya that doesn't act against terrorist threats, rather than a focused nation that responds to threats despite opinions of the whiners. It does absolutely no good to have the Eurolefties love us if we're allowing our people to be targeted in heinous terrorist acts, and for allowing threats to be built. This is why I say modern day liberals in power, especially in a time of war, is a dangerous prospect.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Not that I should have to tell you this, but "something similar" is very broad. Doesn't mean a dentention center will be created.

. . . only to [be] replaced . . .

[magic452]

We could just put them on a strict Peanut Butter diet. :rotfl::rotfl:

[Zachstar]

Oh geez SeaDemon seriously Free Republic is that way.

You think for one moment that "government" over there loves us? Adores us? Would never sell us out to make money? You got to be out of your right wing mind to think that.

We lost because we did not find weapons of mass destruction. If a pure form of win or lose is all you want. But you know what? Now that us "Liberals" (Even tho I am actually a progressive tho that may be too difficult for the deep right to understand) are in charge we can ignore your "Insight" just like you relished doing to us for the past 2 terms.


How about you mosey on over to freeperville and prepare your speeches about how Obama leaving Iraq caused them to Join Iran and form alliances with other bad guys and even china. And for good measure be sure to throw in "It is still all Clinton's fault" Hell throw Carter in for good measure.

[baggygreen]

Originally Posted by Zachstar

How about you mosey on over to freeperville and prepare your speeches about how Obama leaving Iraq caused them to Join Iran and form alliances with other bad guys and even china. And for good measure be sure to throw in "It is still all Clinton's fault" Hell throw Carter in for good measure.

God I hope that doesn't happen. I posted the fear of it a couple of years ago, but still i hope that doesnt happen. It'd get very messy very quickly. You reckon Israel would sit idly by while Iran's revolutionary Guards shift right to the western Iraqi border? bloody hell

[Zachstar]

It is going to happen. That is why we were in Iraq for so long.

We wont know the extent of the Cluster**** of shifting the balance of power over there until the day oil skyrockets on news that they will gain goods from China in exchange for lots of their oil.

And I aint talking about green tea or chopsticks. I am talking fighters, Diesels, even SAMS.

And what about Israel? They just had the 2nd major Cluster**** in less than 5 years. Their influence is now severely weakened. They will not tango with Iraq if Iran AND China has it's back.

Granted it is FAR more likely they make a deal with Iran before such an extensive deal with China. Yet, Do not think for a moment that they will be "Friends" They are in it for the money and the "Way out" once we get off the tit of oil.

That is why there is no such thing as "Liberating" a country anymore. They know troops will stick around for a decade. Maybe 2 these days until they make it unpopular enough to shoo us out. Then they are free to make any kind of agreements they want. Because the chances of the US invading Iraq AGAIN will be about as much as Russia invading again.

It is all about the money and we can't pay these thugs in their .gov enough to love the stars and stripes and respect us. They got what they wanted.

[baggygreen]

Yeh, I dunno about israel's influence dropping following gaza.

From what I understood they didnt stuff up too badly this time, from a strictly military perspective. I got no doubt that lebanon was a much needed wakeup call for them tho. Will China back the ME states for long? after all, following russias precedent in georgia, china can head over to siberia, which is ethnically more chinese anyway, and make use of their resources. How far are they from this?

You're right though, Iran and Iraq will soon unite under a shi'a banner and scare the ****e outta the lower gulf states.

[baggygreen]

Yeh, I dunno about israel's influence dropping following gaza.

From what I understood they didnt stuff up too badly this time, from a strictly military perspective. I got no doubt that lebanon was a much needed wakeup call for them tho. Will China back the ME states for long? after all, following russias precedent in georgia, china can head over to siberia, which is ethnically more chinese anyway, and make use of their resources. How far are they from this?

You're right though, Iran and Iraq will soon unite under a shi'a banner and scare the ****e outta the lower gulf states. It is

[baggygreen]

Yeh, I dunno about israel's influence dropping following gaza.

From what I understood they didnt stuff up too badly this time, from a strictly military perspective. I got no doubt that lebanon was a much needed wakeup call for them tho. Will China back the ME states for long? after all, following russias precedent in georgia, china can head over to siberia, which is ethnically more chinese anyway, and make use of their resources. How far are they from this?

You're right though, Iran and Iraq will soon unite under a shi'a banner and scare the ****e outta the lower gulf states. It

[baggygreen]

Yeh, I dunno about israel's influence dropping following gaza.

From what I understood they didnt stuff up too badly this time, from a strictly military perspective. I got no doubt that lebanon was a much needed wakeup call for them tho. Will China back the ME states for long? after all, following russias precedent in georgia, china can head over to siberia, which is ethnically more chinese anyway, and make use of their resources. How far are they from this?

You're right though, Iran and Iraq will soon unite under a shi'a banner and scare the ****e outta the lower gulf states. It is very troubling..

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

These people were not exactly sitting in terror camps in Afghanistan on a Taliban picnic.

Who said they were sitting in terrorist camps in the Middle East? A good portion were minding their own business in their own towns and villages. Only three were convicted of anything (David Hicks, the guy who gave material support to the 2001 terrorists, Salim Hamdan, Bin Laden's chauffeur, and Ali ah-Bahlul, who praised the attack on the USS Cole...), and there have been 775 people who have been to Gitmo (270 of which are still there; the rest have either been released due to either a lacking of evidence or sent to other countries for interrogation).

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You simply can't address the issue of why your hero has decided to use his first day to defend the rights of enemy combatants rather than use the first day to ensure our people have what they need to fight these terrorists and win.

You fool, you can't beat/win against terrorism. So long as you've got a living human being, you'll have that one guy who takes on a political chaos doctrine. No matter how much we may all wish it, the unfortunate fact of life is you will always have those who choose terrorism.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

In regards to your first point, Mr. Bush responded to the attacks on 9/11 and has kept the nation safe from another attack since.

By violating almost every right the Constitution guarantees us. Yes, it's quite important for the government to listen in on my phone calls, track my Internet records, place me on a watch list because of my name and origin, and just throw civility let alone my very inalienable rights out of the equation...

And this is where you give me the "Some sacrifices must be made" speech...

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

All the while the left and Democrats have fought him the entire way.

What do you expect? We devoted the majority of our Middle East invasion force to Iraq, not Afghanistan to pursue Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. We took down one of the few stable governments over there that opposed terrorism but was ruled by an oppressive leader WHICH OUR GOVERNMENT PUT IN CHARGE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

That is the fault of the Democrats.

Oh please, spare me this song. It's getting quite repetitive.

The situation we are in now is not the fault solely of the Democrats as you claim, and at the same time it was not solely the fault of the Republicans. Still, Bush was president for the last 8 years, and Congress had a Republican majority from 1995 to 2007 and during the second half of Clinton's first term lasting until his resignation (except for that one incident with the flipping during the 107th Congress).

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

And yes, If Mr. Clinton had done his job, 9/11 probably would not have happened.

Maybe if the Republican-controlled Congress had gone with more of Clinton's proposals, he would have been able to accomplish more...

By the way, you know for a fact it probably would not have happened?

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

That's as obvious as gravity beneath your feet.

And you know this how? Please, I'd love to know. Do you by chance have a crystal ball that tells you what would have been?

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

. . . only to [be] replaced . . .

Dude, I know what I wrote and what I meant by it. Perhaps you found some kind of ambiguity within the statement that gave you an obviously sought-after chance to make yet another weak argument, but I have since clarified MY STATEMENT. Clearly you can't intellectually stand up to the statement as it was intended, because you insist upon merely debating semantics AFTER any "ambiguity" (which, quite frankly, is of your own design) has been cleared up.

Now, do you wish to debate the point I was making all along or would you prefer to continue prattling on with your absurd interpretation of what you THOUGHT I meant, after I cleared up the ambiguity that you created within your own mind?

[Aramike]

Oh, and I just HAVE to respond to this:

By violating almost every right the Constitution guarantees us. Yes, it's quite important for the government to listen in on my phone calls, track my Internet records, place me on a watch list because of my name and origin, and just throw civility let alone my very inalienable rights out of the equation...

And this is where you give me the "Some sacrifices must be made" speech...

Complete and utter hogwash.

"...almost every right..."? Have you ever READ the Constitution? I'm pretty sure that the Patriot Act applies to very few of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In fact, here's a link to the Bill of Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Bill_of_Rights. The only ammendment really effected by the Patroit Act is ... oh, wait ... NONE.

People complain about the Fourth Ammendment, but choose to conveniently ignore the word "unreasonable" contained within.

I've always get a kick out of people who cite the Constitution without actually being aware of what's within...

In any case, the bottom line isn't any "sacrifices have to be made" garbage. I haven't made any personal sacrifices since the Patriot Act, and I doubt anyone here has.

Honestly, I believe that it's just an extension of the "hate Bush" vitriol that spawns people to make very loose arguments based solely upon "principle" regardless of pragmatism or common sense.

[Konovalov]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

You simply can't address the issue of why your hero has decided to use his first day to defend the rights of enemy combatants rather than use the first day to ensure our people have what they need to fight these terrorists and win.

Back home in Australia we have a saying being "give everyone a fair go". The impresson I get is that you aren't giving the bloke a fair go. That bloke by the way is President Obama. Your President assuming that you are a US citizen.

It doesn't look like to me that President Obama is going soft on Al Qaeda from this breaking news today.