My whole point is that if that is the issue, then discuss that. It is pointless when people introduce whatever particular propaganda they like even when it flies in the face of facts. That is the problem with modern day politics and all the spin machines and outlets on both sides IMO.
Is it possible that Obama had very little to do with this? I guess. Is it possible that his vastly increasing the focus on operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan and strengthening our relationships there had a hand in this? I guess that's possible too.
No offense, but that one's "spin," Bro. Iraq has quieted down because of the Troop Surge that Senator Obama opposed. This has freed up more resources for Afghanistan (and Pakistan) operations - but make no mistake, our relations there have NOT improved since Obama took office. If anything, they've continued to grow worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstew
Is it possible that this is all a scam and that Osama has either been dead or is sipping margaritas on some private beach on our dime? Anything's possible.
Let's leave the "margaritas on a beach" theory for coadie and caman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstew
I'm not sure that you can even begin to compare the scope of our involvement and loss in Iraq to what happened in Libya.
Wait a minute... did you mean "losses in Iraq?" We didn't "lose" in Iraq. We went there to throw out Saddam and we did that. And, Libya isn't past tense ("what happened in Libya") - it's ongoing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tstew
Either way I guess I'll go with it for the sake of conversation. Taking out Saddam out of power (which took 15 minutes) is not where a lot of people had problems. It was our continued involvement and our effort to somehow win something that is more than likely unwinnable that turned most people off who I've heard. The resources that we were expending there were too great in terms of human life, but also in terms of resources that would have been better served if focused on those who actually were attacking us.
Either way, I'm still not sure I'm ready to compare Libya to Iraq just yet. Get back with me in 10 years or so
You're right about the mess that followed Saddam's ouster. I personally can't believe our DoD people and folks in the Bush admin didn't see those problems coming on... but then again, they obviously did buy into the intel we were getting from the Brits and the French that made Saddam's army out to be this colossal behemoth that would step into the vacuum and keep order.
The comparison between Iraq and Libya isn't in their respective battlefield situation. It's what we see when we look at the President's desk.
GWB took us into Iraq after 12+ years of Iraqi noncompliance to over a dozen Security Council Resolutions. Iraq was also openly firing upon and engaging our aircraft in the UN mandated No-Fly zones. They were shooting at Americans. This is an act of war in anyone's book. They also had failed to comply with the terms of the Kuwait/Gulf War cease fire agreement. Noncompliance with a ceasefire means that there is no "ceasefire..." The Gulf War of 1990/1991 had never really ended until Saddam was out.
The United States Congress met in a special joint session in 2003 to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
In Libya - The Obama Administration attacked a country that hadn't fired a shot at us since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 - 23 years ago! The Obama administration attacked Libya with just a handful of allies (none from Africa where Libya is located) and WITHOUT Congressional authorization.
Imagine if GWB had attacked anyone without first getting Congressional authorization. We'd be listening to all of the media and press screaming hysterically about a "Constitutional Crisis!!!"
... but Obama? He gets a free pass to drop his bombs wherever he wants. The double standard is the "difference" between Iraq and Libya. In both cases we had (have) a President who is simply doing his best to protect Americans and American interests. In Obama's case - he gets support from his political opponents. In Bush's case - he got treatment that at times proved to be treasonous.
No offense, but that one's "spin," Bro. Iraq has quieted down because of the Troop Surge that Senator Obama opposed. This has freed up more resources for Afghanistan (and Pakistan) operations - but make no mistake, our relations there have NOT improved since Obama took office. If anything, they've continued to grow worse.
Let's leave the "margaritas on a beach" theory for coadie and caman.
Wait a minute... did you mean "losses in Iraq?" We didn't "lose" in Iraq. We went there to throw out Saddam and we did that. And, Libya isn't past tense ("what happened in Libya") - it's ongoing.
You're right about the mess that followed Saddam's ouster. I personally can't believe our DoD people and folks in the Bush admin didn't see those problems coming on... but then again, they obviously did buy into the intel we were getting from the Brits and the French that made Saddam's army out to be this colossal behemoth that would step into the vacuum and keep order.
The comparison between Iraq and Libya isn't in their respective battlefield situation. It's what we see when we look at the President's desk.
GWB took us into Iraq after 12+ years of Iraqi noncompliance to over a dozen Security Council Resolutions. Iraq was also openly firing upon and engaging our aircraft in the UN mandated No-Fly zones. They were shooting at Americans. This is an act of war in anyone's book. They also had failed to comply with the terms of the Kuwait/Gulf War cease fire agreement. Noncompliance with a ceasefire means that there is no "ceasefire..." The Gulf War of 1990/1991 had never really ended until Saddam was out.
The United States Congress met in a special joint session in 2003 to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
In Libya - The Obama Administration attacked a country that hadn't fired a shot at us since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 - 23 years ago! The Obama administration attacked Libya with just a handful of allies (none from Africa where Libya is located) and WITHOUT Congressional authorization.
Imagine if GWB had attacked anyone without first getting Congressional authorization. We'd be listening to all of the media and press screaming hysterically about a "Constitutional Crisis!!!"
... but Obama? He gets a free pass to drop his bombs wherever he wants. The double standard is the "difference" between Iraq and Libya. In both cases we had (have) a President who is simply doing his best to protect Americans and American interests. In Obama's case - he gets support from his political opponents. In Bush's case - he got treatment that at times proved to be treasonous.
WOW, Pel!!!! I think Fox found a replacement for Beck's spot! LOL! Great post!!!!
Is there a confirmed direct line to water-boarding and yesterday's news? Really?
I think you meant "link." And, the answer is "Yes... I guess so."
The U.S. government, to my knowledge, hasn't ever said, "We water-boarded this guy and got this info..." Instead, we see statements like "subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques..." etc.
"Enhanced interrogation techniques" includes everything from being subjected to the Barney "I Love You" theme song to water-boarding and everything in between. So, just what it took to get these guys to talk is open to some speculation. My impression is that Barney probably only loosened them up a bit before they found themselves strapped inverted to an inclined board with a towel over their faces. Whether or not any of this represents actual "torture" is probably a debate that we should all be having - free from the partisan hatred that the Dems hurled at GWB. (Can we have have that discussion in a civilized manner now that Obama has used and benefitted from the same tools as Bush had?)
According to the AP, Dawn News (Pakistan) and ABC News, Hasan Ghul - an al Qaeda courier who was captured with a CD containing a report for bin Laden's second-in-command seems to have been the key. Under CIA interrogation he provided information that led to Faraj al-Libi (whose interrogation was "enhanced") and al-Libi led them to Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was bin Laden's personal courier and appears to have also been killed the other night.
Next time we do one of those raids, you think we could use a brand new helicopter instead of an old, used, high mileage vehicle?
I mean I have enough sense to rent a car from Enterprise on long road trips rather than use my older model vehicles!
The SEALS need to consult me next time!
Funny thing is, the Navy may have "called Enterprise..." THE Enterprise, for this one. The Enterprise and the Vinson are the two carriers in the area right now, though the Vinson does appear to be closer to Pakistan as of mid-April.
The Navy isn't saying just what ships were involved - at least not yet.
Forum members and friendly neighbouring Americans, "I perceive that in all things ye are too political."
From a Canadian.
__________________ ...MY THOUGHTS, ANYWAY.
"Many Christians do not try to understand what was written in a verse in the Bible. Instead they approach the passage to prove what they already believe."
That is our testimony. If pastors and family or churchers make errors, it hurts their witness.
Obama is taking credit for this event personally and casts blame in a personal way.
Obam signed and order to close Gitmo. Didn't happen.
coadie, we in this forum are NOT talking about pastors, family or church. If I understand this title is OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD. Personal slurs against my husband, my church, and me ... are what you supposed to get an infraction for. Where is Admin? By the way, my testimony is for Jesus Christ, not President Obama.....but at least I can see the truth in both the Bible and Politics. I do not talk politics at church.
President Obama should take credit, he is the Commander in Chief, he did give the order for the Navy Seals to do the job. He has never cast blame in NO way. Now I may be mistaken, and if so I am sure someone will post, President Obama wanted to close Gitmo, but he had no place to send the prisoners that was still there, no one wanted them in their area.
"President Obama single-handedly came up with the technique in order to pull this off," Limbaugh said on Monday. "You see, the military wanted to go in there and bomb as they always do. They wanted to drop missiles and drop bombs and a number of totally destructive techniques here. But President Obama, perhaps the only qualified member in the room to deal with this, insisted on the Special Forces. No one else thought of that. President Obama. Not a single intelligence adviser, not a single national security adviser, not a single military adviser came up with the idea of using SEAL Team 6 or any Special Forces."
No offense, but that one's "spin," Bro. Iraq has quieted down because of the Troop Surge that Senator Obama opposed. This has freed up more resources for Afghanistan (and Pakistan) operations - but make no mistake, our relations there have NOT improved since Obama took office. If anything, they've continued to grow worse.
Let's leave the "margaritas on a beach" theory for coadie and caman.
Wait a minute... did you mean "losses in Iraq?" We didn't "lose" in Iraq. We went there to throw out Saddam and we did that. And, Libya isn't past tense ("what happened in Libya") - it's ongoing.
You're right about the mess that followed Saddam's ouster. I personally can't believe our DoD people and folks in the Bush admin didn't see those problems coming on... but then again, they obviously did buy into the intel we were getting from the Brits and the French that made Saddam's army out to be this colossal behemoth that would step into the vacuum and keep order.
The comparison between Iraq and Libya isn't in their respective battlefield situation. It's what we see when we look at the President's desk.
GWB took us into Iraq after 12+ years of Iraqi noncompliance to over a dozen Security Council Resolutions. Iraq was also openly firing upon and engaging our aircraft in the UN mandated No-Fly zones. They were shooting at Americans. This is an act of war in anyone's book. They also had failed to comply with the terms of the Kuwait/Gulf War cease fire agreement. Noncompliance with a ceasefire means that there is no "ceasefire..." The Gulf War of 1990/1991 had never really ended until Saddam was out.
The United States Congress met in a special joint session in 2003 to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
In Libya - The Obama Administration attacked a country that hadn't fired a shot at us since the Lockerbie bombing in 1988 - 23 years ago! The Obama administration attacked Libya with just a handful of allies (none from Africa where Libya is located) and WITHOUT Congressional authorization.
Imagine if GWB had attacked anyone without first getting Congressional authorization. We'd be listening to all of the media and press screaming hysterically about a "Constitutional Crisis!!!"
... but Obama? He gets a free pass to drop his bombs wherever he wants. The double standard is the "difference" between Iraq and Libya. In both cases we had (have) a President who is simply doing his best to protect Americans and American interests. In Obama's case - he gets support from his political opponents. In Bush's case - he got treatment that at times proved to be treasonous.
Pel, I did mean "losses" in terms of lives, resources, and energies focused on. The issue of whether we "lost" or "won" the war is an entirely different debate.
There is too much here for me to respond to. However, I'll just say that my main point was that his consistent message was that we were focusing on Iraq at the expense of the real war on terror and those who pose a legitimate threat against us. There are tons of videos that support this and the message was always consistent. He immediately started beefing up activities in the region once he took office. That's all I'm saying. I'm not nominating him for another Nobel Prize. I'm not saying you should vote for him. I'm just clearing up some misinformation.
The issue as to how the powers-that-be didn't foresee the inevitable problems in Iraq is a totally different issue as well. It just seems to me that they didn't fully understand the nature of sectarian and tribal conflicts and were expecting people in the region to think along the lines of nationalistic patriotism...but I don't know...
__________________
There are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Chuck Norris lives in Houston.
Either the United States will destroy ignorance, or ignorance will destroy the United States. – W.E.B. DuBois
That's how I recall his rhetoric on the campaign trail. He did promise to focus on getting OBL and those who were behind 9/11. He deserves kudos for following through. It cannot be denied that without the groundwork being laid during the Bush years, this day may never have come.
This is true, but did he say he would focus on the war with the Taliban?
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Let's leave the "margaritas on a beach" theory for coadie and caman. 
Linear Mode
