The Official Barack "The Peace Candidate" Obama Speech thread...

[aravoth]

OMG I can't wait!!!

Here we go!

[Thrashertm]

I'm watching this farce. CNN is drooling over the chance at another 8 years of war news coverage.

[aravoth]

He all smiles today ..... Wooohooooooo, litz keel dem peeple

[phill4paul]

Every cadet should stand up and say they will protect and defend the Constitution over their commander in chei\\ief.

[Thrashertm]

Wolf Blitzer had a visible erection in the pre-game coverage.

[phill4paul]

We DID ask for what happened on 9-11...WTF...

[aravoth]

ROFL "ravaged after the Soviet Union occupied it".....


WTF does he think we are doing?

[unconsious767]

http://cspan.org/Watch/C-SPAN3.aspx

[HOLLYWOOD]

Tell Obozo... Al Qaeda is not the only force that has killed innocent Women and Children. A matter of fact the killings are exponential by the US Imperial Empire in comparison to the Taliban or AQ.

Go ahead America buy the Jingoism hook, line, and sinker.


Who's Karzai again? CONOCO what?

[RSLudlum]

Every cadet should stand up and say they will protect and defend the Constitution over their commander in chei\\ief.


I wonder how many times the word 'international' will be spoken.

[someperson]

Thank you for the stream unconsious767 :)

[aravoth]

adding 30k puts the number close to old soviet levels ya know.

[Mandrik]

I wish US troops would say no to their orders and refuse to fight these horrible wars.

[unconsious767]

YouTube - Obama Promise To End The War, 2007 - "You Can Take That To The Bank" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk)

[aravoth]

lol, he just took a jab at the "Status Quo".... as if Raising Troop levels isn't "status Quo.

This dude is a fucking joke.

[bucfish]

I must go Puke

[aravoth]

Seriously, I wonder how many more 9/11's there will be, and how many new terrorists this will create...

[phill4paul]

"I've had some good photo ops with our countries fodder......"

[HOLLYWOOD]

Hey Boys & Girls,

Today's repetitive magic word of the year is; "Extraordinary"


dear White House,

What about the engaging deals between the Taliban, the CIA, and the US government for the past 25 years?How many Billions in funding and special weapons training and tatics.

Obama should be teleprompting, "Creating Terrorism... Funds our Military Industrial Complex, Banking Cabal Terrorism, and Zionist Global Rule."

Pure 110% Blowback Bullshit Barry

[bucfish]

Our Security is at Stake from peeps on the other side of the globe that have AK-47's, I am amazed.

[aravoth]

Our Security is at Stake from peeps on the other side of the globe that have AK-47's, I am amazed.

Didn't you know that a 7.62mm round can fly across 2 continents and an ocean?

[someperson]

I like how Pakistan has now been added to the target list. He says it so nonchalantly. :|

[aravoth]

I like how Pakistan has now been added to the target list. He says it so nonchalantly. :|

He should, it was the first country he bombed when he took office. Targeted a wedding, because the bride was a threat to america.... or something like that.

[bucfish]

I like how Pakistan has now been added to the target list. He says it so nonchalantly. :|

The Slickster he is

[phill4paul]

Blah, Blah, Blah..I am not Bush...but I am Bush.....Blah,Blah,Blah.....

[Cowlesy]

The neoconservatives response: "Well this won't be enough troop-wise. We need at least 60,000--the last 8 years prove that. We demand more blood."

[phill4paul]

"The days of providing a blank check are over"....Because we have ruined our economy. But don't you worry. We'll tax generations to come.

[aravoth]

Here we go... "Dear Afgahnistan, we want peace, thats why we kill you by the thousands"

[bucfish]

America is your partner. America is a gold digging whore that is a cancer that spreads. Like all empires

[phill4paul]

Word, America wants you to bring the troops home.......

[HOLLYWOOD]

Don't you fine it very odd that Obama's speech protested in front by the SS aka Secret Service... having to be position themselves throughout the West Point military Academy audience to protect the Elitist?

Pawns for TPTB in control and profit along the way. I see that 3am Fat Ass Pant suit sleazeball is there.

[RSLudlum]

"a long lasting relationship with Afghanistan"

Translation: We will build permanent bases and keep American soldiers in your land just like we have done in the likes of Germany, Korea, etc...

[Goldhunter27]

coalition:D

[someperson]

Viciously attacked by Afghanistan? What the devil is this? lol this is a joke.

[aravoth]

Oh holy shit, I don't even know if i can listen to his bullshit for another minute. I'm going to try but holy crap. "History shows that this is not another veitnam". He must have failed every history class he ever took.

[RSLudlum]

It's not another Vietnam. It's actually turning out to be worse.

[someperson]

Wow, he just invoked 9/11.

[RM918]

Blah blah new strategies blah blah forge alliances blah blah partisanship.

He truly is a master at taking a really, really long time to say absolutely nothing.

Nothing will change.

[HOLLYWOOD]

If anyone caught the Gordon Brown and Britain's Parliament aka America's Poor Puppet state, is being coordinated preciously to The Banana Republic's orders.

Amazes me that the UK's 10,000 troops, they are strengthening their coalition force in Afghanistan by a whole 5%... of course all this UK waring is probably funded by the FEDERAL RESERVE and the American Taxpayers

Intelligence needs to be better? Gesus, we spend $100's of Billions intel and surveillance and it's still a disorganized? Yeah... Right... Whatever

Oh here we go... Weapons of Mass Destruction and ending them all... how about starting with Israel's 240 Nukes Obama?

[RSLudlum]

"our values aren't just what's written on the parchment"

The Constitution doesn't matter.

[Goldhunter27]

I've got an Eisenhower for that son of a bitch.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Obama, "We don't occupy other nations."

Is this guy that high or thinks that Americans are that stupid?

400,000 troops in other countries and 10,000's more on the high seas.

Truth is Treason in an Empire of Lies

[RSLudlum]

I've got an Eisenhower for that son of a bitch.


I lol'd at his choice quote from Eisenhower. How many hospitals, shoolhouses, etc. could be built for the price of your war Obama? Oh yeah, and how's that military-industrial complex thingy doing that Ike talked about?

[phill4paul]

Oh holy shit, I don't even know if i can listen to his bullshit for another minute. I'm going to try but holy crap. "History shows that this is not another veitnam". He must have failed every history class he ever took.

Yeah. Quite right.

[kahless]

Ron Paul has a history of supporting an effort in Afghanistan. Why is this so bad? We lost allot of innocent people here in NY so can someone besides the 9/11 truthers explain why this is so bad or is everyone that is complaining a truther?

{edit: just looking for the counter argument and are not taking a position}

[messana]

Didn't you know that a 7.62mm round can fly across 2 continents and an ocean?

Who needs AKs when all you need to take down 747s are a couple box cutters.

[phill4paul]

Ron Paul has a history of supporting our effort in Afghanistan. Why is this so bad? We lost allot of innocent people here in NY so can someone besides the 9/11 truthers explain why this is so bad or is everyone here a truther?

:(

Give a man a fish and he'll eat you out of house and home. Teach a man to fish and he'll think on his own by using the search function....

[malkusm]

Ron Paul has a history of supporting our effort in Afghanistan. Why is this so bad? We lost allot of innocent people here in NY so can someone besides the 9/11 truthers explain why this is so bad or is everyone that is complaining a truther?

Ron Paul said he would have supported a declared war in 2001 against Afghanistan. This war was never declared. Ron Paul wanted to clearly define the enemy, win the war against that enemy, and come home. He also wanted to bring troops home from all over the world - Iraq, Korea, Germany, ....

[vegaspilot03]

Ron Paul has a history of supporting our effort in Afghanistan. Why is this so bad? We lost allot of innocent people here in NY so can someone besides the 9/11 truthers explain why this is so bad or is everyone that is complaining a truther?

oh, your poor misguided soul. to justify death in revenge of another death, the oldest tragedy in the world.

[kahless]

:(

Give a man a fish and he'll eat you out of house and home. Teach a man to fish and he'll think on his own by using the search function....

This is not Iraq. We are talking about Afghanistan. The same old arguments do not apply. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against it in this forum except that of 9/11 truthers.

Ron says they attack us here because we are over there. I do not think he means we should roll over when 3500 innocent people on our soil were killed since he pushed for legislation in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. Are those against it also against Ron's legislation introduced a few years ago?



H.R. 3216:

2007-2008 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007
7/27/2007--Introduced.
Marque and Reprisal Act of 2007 - Authorizes and requests the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal to commission privately armed and equipped persons and entities to seize outside of the United States the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions against the United States on September 11, 2001, and for any planned similar acts or acts of war against the United States in the future.
States that no letter of marque and reprisal shall be issued without the posting of a security bond in such amount as the President determines sufficient to ensure the letter's execution.

[Cowlesy]

Michael Scheuer's view about today on how long we'll be there.

http://security.nationaljournal.com/2009/11/how-long-will-the-us-be-in-afg.php#1397308


QUESTION 1: President Obama is likely prove tomorrow that he matches both Bushes and Clinton as a feckless, self-serving, and fundamentally America-destroying politician, and that like them he has not the remotest clue about the threat the Islamists pose to the United States. If he sends an Islamist-delighting c. 30,000 troops, we will know he has no intention of winning -- that is annihilating al-Qaeda, for the myriad professors, pundits, and intellectuals who can’t define or understand the term “victory” -- but has concluded that he must suppress the Pacifists in his party until after the 2010 mid-term elections. He therefore will allow our soldier-children to bleed, be fitted for false limbs, and die so the Democrats have a shot at maintaining their majority. He will dress this up by hanging the we-won't- fight-unless-you-decorrupt sword over Karzai's head -- preparing the endlessly corrupt Karzai as the scapegoat for Obama's and his predecessors’ willful defeat. He also will join his caterwauling fellow adolescent, UK PM Gordon Brown, in pathetically demanding that Pakistan do more to eradicate bin Laden and al-Qaeda, thereby fingering another scapegoat for our eventual failure. (NB: This must be the first time in Islamic history that a Muslim country -- Pakistan -- has been willing to start and wage a stability-destroying civil war on its own turf on behalf of its Christian/Pagan allies only to be told it is not doing enough.)
QUESTION 2: We should have never gone to Afghanistan at all if our goal was not the military one of annihilating al-Qaeda. Since 9/11, that has been America's only achievable Afghan mission, although the chances of achieving it have gone from good in '01 to nearly nil today. The installation of the other things bruited in Obama's dither-fest -- a stable Afghan polity, a strong central government, women's rights, parliamentary democracy, effective security/military services, curbing corruption, economic development, ethnic/religious reconciliation -- might eventually be done by Afghans, but none will be achieved as along as there is foreign occupying army present. Until the occupiers are gone, there will only be a steadily failing U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. When it is over and America loses, Obama will have completed the work begun by his three predecessors and proven to both our nation-state and non-nation-state enemies that America can no longer even identify achievable war aims, let alone fight and win a war.
P.S. The questions posed this morning strike me as encapsulating why America always loses wars, and why its government leaders and generals are the laughing stock of those in the world who still know how to wage war. Implicit in the questions, I think, is the belief that our Islamist enemies will not have a vote in how long we can stay in Afghanistan. I think that will prove to be one of those basic assumptions that move us quite far along the road toward hell.

[aravoth]

This is not Iraq. We are talking about Afghanistan. The same old arguments do not apply. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against it in this forum except that of 9/11 truthers.

Ron says they attack us here because we are over there. He did not mean we should roll over when 3500 innocent people on our soil were killed since he pushed for legislation in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda.

He said if you want to go to war, declare it.

In in the real world, he pleaded to issue a letter of Mark and Reprisal on Bin Laden's head.

He did not want to send ten of thousands of troops to afgahnistan. He wanted to pay bounty hunters to bring him in.

get it?

[HOLLYWOOD]

Why is there still 124,000 military troops in Iraq?

Contracted Brownshirts still in Iraq, Afghanistan contractor Bonus awards?

This is all a farce, FOX, MSNBC, CNN, ABC... it's whoever controls the money... controls the WARS. The sheeple won't wake up until they live in poverty and start going hungry. Until then, take it up the coat

[dr. hfn]

Only good mainstream media i've ever seen is Russia Today, we should all petition them to get them on the air over here.

[kahless]

He said if you want to go to war, declare it.

In in the real world, he pleaded to issue a letter of Mark and Reprisal on Bin Laden's head.

He did not want to send ten of thousands of troops to afgahnistan. He wanted to pay bounty hunters to bring him in.

get it?

I posted the text of that a few posts back but was curious of the reasons of whether those posting are aligned with the same reasoning.

[RM918]

This is not Iraq. We are talking about Afghanistan. The same old arguments do not apply. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against it in this forum except that of 9/11 truthers.

Ron says they attack us here because we are over there. I do not think he means we should roll over when 3500 innocent people on our soil were killed since he pushed for legislation in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. Are those against it also against Ron's legislation introduced a few years ago?

He's for going after the terrorists, not blowing the place up and rebuilding it.

Al Qaeda is no longer over there in any significant number, we should've gone after the principle aggressors and left the rest alone. He is not in favor of the nation-building effort, in the least. You won't find any evidence that he is. The only reason we're there now is to supposedly stop the Taliban from 'coming back', even though the Taliban did not directly attack us.

If that's a reason to invade someone's country and completely level their government and then rebuild it, we'd have to invade Germany (again) and Saudi Arabia because that's where most of the planning and funding came from.

[someperson]

I'm sure the military contractors can't wait until July 2011. If the imaginary "withdrawal" from Iraq is any indication, they'll have plenty to gain.

[kahless]

I have no sympathy for the Taliban considering they gave Al Qeada and Bin Laden safe haven. Correct?

[malkusm]

I have no sympathy for the Taliban considering they gave Al Qeada and Bin Laden safe haven. Correct?

Sure - and Al Qaeda has strongholds in not only Afghanistan, but also Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Iran....

Where would you draw the line, if you were president?

[tangent4ronpaul]

coalition:D

OH yeah! - was wondering if anyone else caught that... 43 countries! - like in Iraq. Some were a single unit. A medical aid station or a handful of MP's or something. Every single one of those other countries was bribed for their participation in Iraq - I wonder what the bribes are for Afghanistan...

-t

[HOLLYWOOD]

Insider operations has a concentration of all troops in Helmend and the eastern Province...

All it will do is scurry the rats to other locations. .Gov and the MSM will spin it as a success when in truth, it's all a False Positive.

This will go up and up... look for XE Corporation and the rest of hired thugs to grow in Afghanistan. It will be more and more by the Puppet in Power.

Hah! That racist beetach Maxine Waters is puking to Olbermannon MSNBC, of course once again... has to bring up the Congressional Black Caucus crap. Any wagers on the next middle east war appropriations bill price tag?

$100 Billion $125 Billion? maybe $25 Billion through the Black classified channels.

I presume Maxine Waters wants more money of Africa instead...

[klamath]

This is not Iraq. We are talking about Afghanistan. The same old arguments do not apply. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against it in this forum except that of 9/11 truthers.

Ron says they attack us here because we are over there. I do not think he means we should roll over when 3500 innocent people on our soil were killed since he pushed for legislation in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. Are those against it also against Ron's legislation introduced a few years ago?

The old government of Afganistan did not bomb the WTC. Osama bin laden did. RP wanted to get Osama and al Qaeda not run a war with the average country people of Afganistan. When RP voted to authorize the war in Afganistan He believed it was the specifically go after Bin laden and Al qaeda. If you look back at RP's speeches he states the mission turned into something it was never meant to be, nation building in a nation that doesn't want foreigners period in their country. The people we are fighting did not bomb the WTC and that is why it is wrong. Just read all the intellgence reports. Al Qaeda no longer operates out of one country anymore if they ever did.

[sofia]

Ron Paul has a history of supporting an effort in Afghanistan. Why is this so bad? We lost allot of innocent people here in NY so can someone besides the 9/11 truthers explain why this is so bad or is everyone that is complaining a truther?

{edit: just looking for the counter argument and are not taking a position}

still believe that some caveman in Afghaistan did 911 eh?

got news for ya. Until the truth of 911 comes out, arguing against the Afghan war is an illogical position.

if they could pull the global warming scam on the sheeple...they could just as easily pull the 911 scam

[kahless]

The old government of Afganistan did not bomb the WTC. Osama bin laden did. RP wanted to get Osama and al Qaeda not run a war with the average country people of Afganistan. When RP voted to authorize the war in Afganistan He believed it was the specifically go after Bin laden and Al qaeda. If you look back at RP's speeches he states the mission turned into something it was never meant to be, nation building in a nation that doesn't want foreigners period in their country. The people we are fighting did not bomb the WTC and that is why it is wrong. Just read all the intellgence reports. Al Qaeda no longer operates out of one country anymore if they ever did.

How do you respond to those that say they did not bomb us but gave Al Qeada and Bin Laden safe haven? Did they actually do that or just have no control over their territory?

[klamath]

I have no sympathy for the Taliban considering they gave Al Qeada and Bin Laden safe haven. Correct?

No they just didn't turn him over to us. They had no power to stop us from going in and taking him out.

Now turn the clock back 30 years and read about the american hostages in Iran. Why did the Iranians sieze the American embussy? It was because we would not turn over the Shah that they considered just as evil as we consider Bin Laden. Would they have been in their right to invade our country and change our government and occupy us decades because of that?

[malkusm]

How do you respond to those that say they did not bomb us but gave Al Qeada and Bin Laden safe haven? Did they actually do that or just have no control over their territory?

Has the United States not overthrown entire governments in Iran? In Iraq? In Pakistan? Has not our own government given safe haven to aggressors and global criminals? Would you be upset if those countries occupied your land, overthrew your government, on the basis that it might have an agenda against its own government?

This all boils down to....no one can, or ever will, define the word "terrorist."

[dr. hfn]

Poll about the speech on the Daily Kos site...

[kahless]

Has the United States not overthrown entire governments in Iran? In Iraq? In Pakistan? Has not our own government given safe haven to aggressors and global criminals? Would you be upset if those countries occupied your land, overthrew your government, on the basis that it might have an agenda against its own government?

This all boils down to....no one can, or ever will, define the word "terrorist."

More importantly do you really want to risk Pakistan nukes ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda. I think if Pakistan did not have nukes I would probably be leaning more towards Ron's plan.

[malkusm]

More importantly do you really want to risk Pakistan nukes ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda. I think if Pakistan did not have nukes I would probably be leaning more towards Ron's plan.

So, again, what do you propose? Should we attempt to control the world, and spend billions upon billions, to make sure that every nuclear weapon that exists is under our control? When does "national defense" end and "global imperialism" begin? :confused:

[klamath]

More importantly do you really want to risk Pakistan nukes ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda. I think if Pakistan did not have nukes I would probably be leaning more towards Ron's plan.

pakistan is getting more and more unstable with us there. Us being there is what is going to cause that govenment to fall apart. Tell me how that is going to keep the nukes out of the hand of the nuts. the tribes of pakistan are turning against their own government because they think and maybe rightly think we are running their leaders and killing their local tribes people.

[aravoth]

More importantly do you really want to risk Pakistan nukes ending up in the hands of Al Qaeda. I think if Pakistan did not have nukes I would probably be leaning more towards Ron's plan.

if people had listened to Ron's plan 30 years ago, none of this would have happened.

[Liberty Star]

The highlight of the speech was when camera was showing the audience and showed a glimpse of a cadet with her eyes closed, camera moved away too quickly but looked like she was taking a power nap in the middle of Obama speech LOL

[phill4paul]

The highlight of the speech was when camera was showing the audience and showed a glimpse of a cadet with her eyes closed, camera moved away too quickly but looked like she was taking a power nap LOL

If you had to go through what the cadets went through you would be doing the same.

They go to war when Congress commands them and look to a military commander for guidance. The "commander -in-chief" talks a lot.

[phill4paul]

This is not Iraq. We are talking about Afghanistan. The same old arguments do not apply. I have yet to hear a coherent argument against it in this forum except that of 9/11 truthers.

Ron says they attack us here because we are over there. I do not think he means we should roll over when 3500 innocent people on our soil were killed since he pushed for legislation in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda. Are those against it also against Ron's legislation introduced a few years ago?

Sorry that I took you tone in a wrong manner. I don't think that a reference to the search function was a wrong answer.

You just lucked out and had others feed you this evening.

Maybe, it was the "truther" insinuation on your part. Yep that'd be it.

Glad some non-truthers could point you in the right direction.

[malkusm]

3500 innocent people on our soil were killed since he pushed for legislation in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda.


2,976 victims and the 19 hijackers died in the attacks.[3] The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 90 countries.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks


At least 1,836 people lost their lives in the actual hurricane and in the subsequent floods, making it the deadliest U.S. hurricane since the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane. Economist and crisis consultant Randall Bell wrote: "Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the largest natural disaster in the history of the United States. Preliminary damage estimates were well in excess of $100 billion, eclipsing many times the damage wrought by Hurricane Andrew in 1992."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_katrina

Let's wage war on hurricanes! It's just as winnable, and just as deadly as "terrorism"!!!!

[phill4paul]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks



Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_katrina

Let's wage war on hurricanes! It's just as winnable, and just as deadly as "terrorism"!!!!

LOL. More winnable?

[Dionysus]

Just read the speech; it's incredible.

Wow, that's all I can say. It makes me proud to be an American. We should really seriously consider if the New World Order is a force for good, despite the shadowy machinations.

That's all I feel like saying right now. It was terrific.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/01/transcript-president-obamas-afghanistan-speech/

[ramallamamama]

Barry Sortoro > Oratory Rubs

[Romulus]

did this clown mention Osama once? Or are we not looking for him anymore?

[Dieseler]

did this clown mention Osama once? Or are we not looking for him anymore?
he dead.

[Romulus]

he dead.

great. we should inform the general population so we can call off this war on terror.

[Dieseler]

great. we should inform the general population so we can call off this war on terror.

No doubt.
Someone posted an email from 2001 claiming his death here somewhere today. Think email was allegedly from Fox news.

[jmdrake]

Ron Paul has a history of supporting an effort in Afghanistan. Why is this so bad? We lost allot of innocent people here in NY so can someone besides the 9/11 truthers explain why this is so bad or is everyone that is complaining a truther?

{edit: just looking for the counter argument and are not taking a position}

Well I am a truther and I think you've just made a great argument why the Ron Paul movement is mistaken to treat truthers like red headed step children.

That said I can make 3 coherent arguments without invoking 9/11 truth.

Counter argument 1: Al Qaeda has had a safe haven since Bush and company allowed them to escape into Pakistan. Thus continuing a war in Afghanistan in order to deny them a "safe haven" is retarded.

The rebuttal to this counter argument is that it raises the specter of extending the war into Pakistan (something Obama has already done and Bush actually did before him). The counter to the rebuttal is that since there has been peaceful "regime change" in Pakistan (our puppet Musharraf is no longer in power) the new government seems to be taking the fight against the Taliban halfway seriously. (Musharraf would send in a few soldiers to die as fodder to give cover to Bush's treason on this, then strike a "peace deal" and give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Taliban to pay off their Al Qaeda debts.)

Another rebuttal is that since the Pakistanis are putting pressure on the tribal regions, AQ might sneak back across the border to Afghanistan if we weren't there. The counter to this rebuttal is a variation on the Joe Biden "predator drone" approach. It would likely be cheaper in terms of men and material to monitor that border with drones and attack anyone making an unauthorized crossing. Also the old "monkey bar" terrorist training camps would not be possible due to the drones. Not a strong counter but a possible one.

I've heard Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura give the "we had our chance in Afghanistan and blew it" argument.

Counter argument 2: Our presence is actually fueling the insurgency.

This is a variation on the "blowback" theme Ron Paul religiously stuck to during the campaign. Basically our occupation is a recruiting poster for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Every time we kill a civilian through "collateral damage" we add his/her relatives to the potential insurgent list. But you can also make the stronger argument that it is funding the Taliban because they get a cut off of all contracts.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/roston

So it's a catch 22. The more money we spend in Afghanistan the more money the Taliban has to buy guns, ammo and material to make IEDs.

Rebuttal? Maybe there are ways to do this "better" that limit blowback. Better accounting practices. Concentrating rebuilding in areas where the U.S. has greater control. etc.

Counter argument 3: 9/11 could have been prevented without going to war or taking away civil liberties. Note this is not what has been characterized as the "truther" position. Even the most ardent government supporters will concede that 9/11 was at best a government screwup. Case in point Condi Rice was either woefully uninformed or lying when she said "Nobody conceived of airplanes as flying bombs". We know the FBI's informant in the 1993 WTC bombing actually made the bomb with the full knowledge of the FBI. Colleen Rowley and others reported how they were thwarted, not by the FISA courts, but by justice department lawyers!

Rebuttal? There really isn't one. At least not from outside the movement. Inside there are a lot of chicken littles who are scared this gets us too close to "9/11 was an inside job". These same people have bought into the unproven hypothesis that there was a "9/11 truther effect" on the 2008 election. Nobody has ever offered any evidence anecdotal or otherwise to prove this. All they can say is "Certain media outlets who don't like Dr. Paul brought this up". But there has never been any evidence of an effect. It's like the people who believe in man made global warming. :(

Regards,

John M. Drake

[Romulus]

No doubt.
Someone posted an email from 2001 claiming his death here somewhere today. Think email was allegedly from Fox news.

funny how he's been ignored for a year while still being on the FBI's most wanted list. nothing fishy there.

[Dieseler]

funny how he's been ignored for a year while still being on the FBI's most wanted list. nothing fishy there.

Really and most everyone I meet is astonished the guy isn't even wanted in connection with 911.
FBI can not tie him to it in any way.
I wonder if Obama knows that?
lol

[kahless]

"3500 innocent people on our soil were killed since he pushed for legislation in Afghanistan against Al Qaeda."


You have my handle attached to that quote but I never said that. If you wanted to make that point take credit for it. I did use the 3500 number which was over stated from the 2,976 you pointed out but that does not make it any less a tragedy.

I see the movement is on track for losing elections since clearly a rational discussion is not possible without invoking 9/11 truth and failure to recognize some facts which demonstrate the situation is not as clear as some would describe here.

edit: above posted before reading your post jmdrake.

[Dionysus]

Obama: "We Did Not Ask for This Fight"
Bush: "We Did Not Seek This Conflict"
Obama: "New Attacks are Being Plotted as I Speak"
Bush: "At This Moment ... Terrorists are Planning New Attacks"
Obama: "Our Cause is Just, Our Resolve Unwavering"
Bush: "Our Cause is Just, Our Coalition [is] Determined"
Obama: "This Is No Idle Danger, No Hypothetical Threat"
Bush: "The Enemies of Freedom Are Not Idle"
Obama: "We Have No Interest in Occupying Your Country"
Bush: "I Wouldn't Be Happy if I Were Occupied Either"

Ron Paul 2012, The above is from michaelmoore.com

[klamath]

You have my handle attached to that quote but I never said that. If you wanted to make that point take credit for it. I did use the 3500 number which was over stated from the 2,976 you pointed out but that does not make it any less a tragedy.

I see the movement is on track for losing elections since clearly a rational discussion is not possible without invoking 9/11 truth and failure to recognize some facts which demonstrate the situation is not as clear as some would describe here.

edit: above posted before reading your post jmdrake.

I tried to address your concerns in a logical manner but you chose not the discuss it with me.

Pakistan was not getting suicide bombings every little while 8 years ago. How are we stablizing the area?

[RideTheDirt]

No doubt.
Someone posted an email from 2001 claiming his death here somewhere today. Think email was allegedly from Fox news.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html


Wednesday, December 26, 2001
Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

[kahless]

Well I am a truther and I think you've just made a great argument why the Ron Paul movement is mistaken to treat truthers like red headed step children.

That said I can make 3 coherent arguments without invoking 9/11 truth.

Counter argument 1: Al Qaeda has had a safe haven since Bush and company allowed them to escape into Pakistan. Thus continuing a war in Afghanistan in order to deny them a "safe haven" is retarded.

The rebuttal to this counter argument is that it raises the specter of extending the war into Pakistan (something Obama has already done and Bush actually did before him). The counter to the rebuttal is that since there has been peaceful "regime change" in Pakistan (our puppet Musharraf is no longer in power) the new government seems to be taking the fight against the Taliban halfway seriously. (Musharraf would send in a few soldiers to die as fodder to give cover to Bush's treason on this, then strike a "peace deal" and give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Taliban to pay off their Al Qaeda debts.)

Another rebuttal is that since the Pakistanis are putting pressure on the tribal regions, AQ might sneak back across the border to Afghanistan if we weren't there. The counter to this rebuttal is a variation on the Joe Biden "predator drone" approach. It would likely be cheaper in terms of men and material to monitor that border with drones and attack anyone making an unauthorized crossing. Also the old "monkey bar" terrorist training camps would not be possible due to the drones. Not a strong counter but a possible one.

I've heard Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura give the "we had our chance in Afghanistan and blew it" argument.

Counter argument 2: Our presence is actually fueling the insurgency.

This is a variation on the "blowback" theme Ron Paul religiously stuck to during the campaign. Basically our occupation is a recruiting poster for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Every time we kill a civilian through "collateral damage" we add his/her relatives to the potential insurgent list. But you can also make the stronger argument that it is funding the Taliban because they get a cut off of all contracts.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/roston

So it's a catch 22. The more money we spend in Afghanistan the more money the Taliban has to buy guns, ammo and material to make IEDs.

Rebuttal? Maybe there are ways to do this "better" that limit blowback. Better accounting practices. Concentrating rebuilding in areas where the U.S. has greater control. etc.

Counter argument 3: 9/11 could have been prevented without going to war or taking away civil liberties. Note this is not what has been characterized as the "truther" position. Even the most ardent government supporters will concede that 9/11 was at best a government screwup. Case in point Condi Rice was either woefully uninformed or lying when she said "Nobody conceived of airplanes as flying bombs". We know the FBI's informant in the 1993 WTC bombing actually made the bomb with the full knowledge of the FBI. Colleen Rowley and others reported how they were thwarted, not by the FISA courts, but by justice department lawyers!

Rebuttal? There really isn't one. At least not from outside the movement. Inside there are a lot of chicken littles who are scared this gets us too close to "9/11 was an inside job". These same people have bought into the unproven hypothesis that there was a "9/11 truther effect" on the 2008 election. Nobody has ever offered any evidence anecdotal or otherwise to prove this. All they can say is "Certain media outlets who don't like Dr. Paul brought this up". But there has never been any evidence of an effect. It's like the people who believe in man made global warming. :(

Regards,

John M. Drake

The 9/11 truthers I have a problem with are those that say our "government" planned it or were behind the attacks on a grand scale. However I agree with those that say they knew an attack was coming but not aware of when or where but did nothing to prevent it. It was pretty clear prior to 9/11 that the government was being grossly or intentionally negligent as far as anti-terror and airline safety.

As a frequent flier prior to 9/11 threats from Bin Laden were not all that unusual and had made my travel plans more difficult. With news reports of threats from Bin Laden and Al Qaeda I remember that summer my friends and I were all wondering why it had not happened yet (average Joes here in NY thinking we were overdue). I remember a threat to Miami International airport from Bin Laden that was all over the news media down there that made my return home difficult. Go a few years back even to 1996 they closed the airspace over Olympic stadium in Atlanta for fear of them hijacking planes and crashing them into the stadium. I have not even touched on the whole scathing report from Al Gore of the airlines. (which he cleaned up in his final report after receiving campaign contributions)

So this was really of no surprise to those paying attention. I therefore agree that Condi Rice was over the top lying when she said "Nobody conceived of airplanes as flying bombs".

Putting that all aside I have yet to hear a solution for securing the Pakistan nukes if we leave. It would seem from reports Pakistan cannot handle their safety therefore the risk is just too great allowing the attacks on these facilities by Al Qaeda to go unchallenged. Accurate?