chess online
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Sigh......epic rant.Bush didn't go after bin laden literally. President Bush took away bin ladens power, his money, his safe harbor, and his band of loyal militants. He forced Osama to imprison HIMSELF. He shamed bin laden and destroyed his life. Bush intimidated all of the regimes in the entire region by overthrowing and killing the most corrupt and powerful leadership in the region. No one messed with the afghans because they control the world heroin market. The Russians control the afghans because they distribute and smuggle the heroin. No one messes with the Russians. But Bush did. Saddam Hussein had missile technology and biological weapons, he also had control of important territory in that region. Bush got rid of him. Anyone who thinks that Bush was seriously trying to kill bin laden is out of their minds. Obama did bin laden a favor by killing him and then glorifying him all over again. He also stirred the pot and practically dared al-Qaeda to avenge bin ladens death in the process. He was like a giddy teenager notifying all of us of bin ladens death. A mature and appropriate president would have gone to bed and had the press secretary do the job they were hired to do. He would not have taken credit for an operation he had nothing to do with aside from watching it on a webcam and approving it a month ahead of time. I also can't get over the irony of Obama using the military to kill bin laden while arming al-Qaeda all over again and giving them safe harbor. Even more safe harbor than they ever had before. He did this by removing Qaddafi from power and supporting the Egyptian instability. If he didn't know what he was doing, he has no business being the President. All of qaddafis weapons and men are now part of al-qaeda. President Bush smoked out al-Qaeda, and imprisoned or killed a vast majority of existing al-qaeda militants. He did this for everyone. Not just Americans or for retribution for 9/11. He did this because it was what had to be done. This is what the US President does. It's part of the job description. We practice diplomacy with diplomatic nations. We do business with nations we don't share cultural beliefs with and whom do things that we don't particularly approve of. We do not and can not extend diplomacy to militant dirt-bags whose culture revolves around lying and violence. We do not extend the privilege of diplomacy to nations who support such organizations. Yet- this is precisely what Obama JUST DID. Bush demonstrated that he is not a liar or a dirtbag by treating the militants like militants and holding people responsible for their actions. When bush left office, he had turned the Middle East into a region with axis hubs of military force strategically placed to protect everyone, including the people of Iran and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan from threats. He set up an extensive radar system monitoring the entire region. Most importantly, what was left of al-Qaeda was pushed into the small country of Yemen, despite a militant group here or there. Saudi intelligence has Yemen on lockdown and US CIA agents infiltrated al Qaeda under bush. Bush dealt with the situation and he shouldered the criticism and has dealt with being called a war monger. Obama has done the exact opposite. Obama is a giant p****, and I don't trust him to keep me or anyone else safe in this world. I have never once felt this way living in this country. I'm not alone either. This should be caution to the rest of the world. Obama will not help you and will not act to prevent a crisis in the way that bush did. He would rather offer sympathy and aid after something has been bombed and thousands are dead, than to invade a nation, drop a bomb, etc. he will not and has not protected the western world. We can only hope that all of us make it through the next four years unscathed. |
||||||
|
*rolls eyes and vomits* |
||||||
|
dmaestro 17-Jan-13, 21:58 |
|
||||||
|
hennybogan1953 18-Jan-13, 04:24 |
|
||||||
|
oh brother |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Wtf ? |
||||||
|
zorroloco 18-Jan-13, 06:22 |
Deleted by zorroloco on 18-Jan-13, 06:22.
|
||||||
|
revisionist tripe you said bush took obl out of the fight and that obama did him a favor by killing him. you said bush made the middle east better by intimidating the leaders in the region. you neglect to mention two wars, over 5000 dead americans and hundreds of thousands of dead iraqis. you neglect to mention the destroyed infrastructure of iraq. and you neglect to mention that bush said he wanted osama dead or alive. you neglect to mention vastly increased al queda recruiting due to illegal invasion of iraq. you neglect to mention lying to congress to start the war. anything to slime obama. this is disgusting revisionist history written by a sour grapes loser. bush says: PRESIDENT Bush said yesterday that he wanted Osama bin Laden, the Saudi exile, "dead or alive" in some of the most bellicose language used by a White House occupant in recent years. "I want justice," he said after a meeting at the Pentagon, where 188 people were killed last Tuesday when an airliner crashed into the building. "And there's an old poster out West that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.' " Just a few months after we were attacked on 9/11, President Bush remarked: 'Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you., |
||||||
|
Of COURSE I mentioned two wars!!! What crack are you smoking that there isn't a war going on? Do planes need to crash into your home? Or where you work? Or maybe if the plane you're taking with your wife to Russia is flown into something. Would you THEN understand what is going on? Do things have to touch you personally? What about a nuclear bomb going off in the US? Or a huge biological weapon? Do you know that either of those things can easily be sent here by someone who has the right missile technology? It sounds like you'd rather WAIT until that happens, and THEN try to do something about it. Destroyed Iraqi infrastructure?! Again- what crack is in your crackpipe? Yes Iraq was really a lovely and very ORGANIZED nation before the US arrived. Al-Qaeda in Iraq? LOOOL. Okay. Right because its not well documented that al-qaeda's hub is now in Yemen along with their bomb maker who incidentally built a bomb for a commercial aircraft and this bomb was handed over to authorities by the intelligence officer IN al-Qaeda who volunteered for the suicide mission to use this bomb. This was actually in the news. LAST YEAR. What wonderland is this that people think we and other countries are NOT at risk? Furthermore, who cares if there are groups in Iraq who hate the US? There are groups IN the US who hate the US. The point is having the terroritory, the missile technology, everything under US control to prevent saddam Hussein from helping Iran, North Korea and so on. We had NO way of monitoring this or stopping it. But okay! Yes, let's just sit back and play kumbayah and smoke grass and pretend that the world doesn't suck and protect ourselves with our intellectual supeririority and evolved morality. |
||||||
|
tat3225 18-Jan-13, 06:58 |
Deleted by tat3225 on 18-Jan-13, 07:08.
|
||||||
|
God I can't stand this anymore. |
||||||
|
tat NOT. pure revisionism. and sour grapes. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 18-Jan-13, 08:32 |
|
||||||
|
hennybogan1953 18-Jan-13, 12:02 |
Is it Barak or Barry? Chilling! |
||||||
|
question how many terrorist attacks on us soil since obama has been in office? how many under bush? how many wars did obama start? how about bush? how many wars did obama end? how about bush? you act like obama has made us less safe... and yet.... we have not been attacked. you are just pissing and moaning because you lost the election and you are bitter. so you make up crap like this. pathetic revisionism. try paying attention to reality instead of rightwing propaganda. |
||||||
|
by the way |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
However, the challenge is that what should have happened is that no one should have known that Osama was dead. Or, some story should have been made up that did not involve the SEAL operation. If this was really about killing bin laden, no one would have known about it. The risks involved with making it public, which is deliberate and a choice, outweight the benefit of killing Bin Laden. The SEALS sign up for a clandestine job. Not only did Barack Obama disrespect them by being so public about this, but he also took the credit for an operation that was actually very dangerous and risky for the SEALS who carried it out. I've said from day one that it was a very risky decision to put an entire seal team at risk like that over Bin Laden. Not worth it. They have families at home and their decision to do what they do needs to be respected by our government just like they are putting their lives on the line for others. By others, I don't mean Osama Bin Laden, who was no longer a threat to anyone. |
||||||
|
tat and you know this.... how? you have private cia/kgb contacts who keep you filled in? and anyway, was there no value to the american public and 9/11 survivors and family to have him dead? i think you are far too quick to ascribe no importance to his death. as for who killed him, of course it was the seals. and their commander in chief was obama. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 18-Jan-13, 20:08 |
|
||||||
|
Then in Benghazi he undermined confidence again by allowing at least one clandestine officer to die. This is beyond important because it's people working in these positions in risky environments who provide intelligence that have stopped terrorist attacks and other things before they happen. They don't go on national television and brag about it either. That's the entire point. Just like Clinton, Obama is ruining all of the existing intellgence infrastructure set up before him and he is leaving this country open to all kinds of things. It's literally just like the clinton administration and the bombings in Kenya and tanzania, Etc. The guy is a total joker who doesn't take the US government seriously. He doesn't respect the people who choose to do clandestine work for the US government at all, and he cares about his image and the criminals he gets funding from more than anything else. He's like Fredo, the impulsive and easily influenced/manipulated puppet brother in the godfather who doesn't know when to shut up. |
||||||
|
Right. Exactly. Read between the lines maestro and think about his word choice and what he did not say. God you're so gullible and its almost painful to watch. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 18-Jan-13, 20:56 |
Robert Gates was a big boy who spoke his mind, a person who put nation before self, praised by both Bush and Obama with a long history of service to the country. He rescued the Department of Defense from the disaster Rumsfeld left. If he thought the President was an idiot he would have said so...your unfounded speculations make YOU appear gullible. www.huffingtonpost.com www.washingtonpost.com |
||||||
|
tat no. you are inconsistent and just being a hater... as much as you couch it in false logic and revisionist history, it is just sour grapes. news for you.... obama is not the antichrist. he is not a communist or even a socialist. he has done some excellent work, a lot of average work, and some bone headed maneuvers. like every president. you on the right are incapable of seeing the obvious... obama took office during the worst financial crisis in 70 years, with a melt down in the auto industry, two unfunded wars, and an international banking fiasco. aig. lehman, goldmann sachs. remember that? remember what happened to the stock market? and now? unemployment is still bad, although it has been steadily, if slowly, improving. the auto industry os doing fine. one war is over, the other winding down, our economy is slowly growing, the stock market is almost fully recovered, and osama is dead. wah. but he bragged about doing it so it doesn't really count. well... i guess the majority of american voters disagree with you. get over it. your argument is ludicrous in the extreme and laughable. |
||||||
|
xorroloco how many terrorist attacks on us soil since obama has been in office? how many under bush? how many wars did obama start? how about bush? how many wars did obama end? how about bush? you act like obama has made us less safe... and yet.... we have not been attacked. you are just pissing and moaning because you lost the election and you are bitter. so you make up crap like this. pathetic revisionism. try paying attention to reality instead of rightwing propaganda." My comment about smoking crack was a joke. Look, Northrop Grumman made a computer animation a couple years ago illustrating the boost phases and entire flight of a minuteman III missile until it terminates, I will try to find a link and post it. Or I'm sure you may be able to find it by googling like, 'northrop grumman minuteman III video'. Make sure to include the northrop grumman part, otherwise who knows what you'll get. The minuteman is a hot launch missile, but the stages are basically the same for any ICBM, hot or cold launched. A cold launched missile like a peacekeeper is ony different in the sense that it's initial boost stage is longer than a minuteman, due to the altitude it gains by being propelled before it's boosters ignite. Whereas a hot launched missile is propelled by it's boosters, therefore shortening the initial boost phase. This actually matters, those 8 seconds or so, when it comes to the anti-missile technology that we have today. Despite some really interesting things that are currently in the works right now, but are not available. NOT availabe yet being the really key thing here..............An intercontinental ballistic missile can't be stopped once it's launched. Call it a peacekeeper, a minuteman, an angni or a dongfeng....a long range ballistic missile is a legitimate threat in the wrong hands. Technically it CAN be stopped, but I don't even want to say that because it's just so hard to do. IF the launch is immediately visible (almost all old soviet missiles-which is technology that is accessible via the old soviet countries- use a cold launch system, which we actually invented, making the launch less visible), and then IF a series of events play out perfectly like a symphony, technically the missile can be bumped off course (literally) by crashing another missile into it, which basically ruins the targeted missile by screwing with the guidance system and busting up an important sequence of events. But there is like a three minute window before an icbm is in the upper atmosphere and the warheads break off and go their separate ways. The northrop grumman video does a good job of showing just how fast this happens and I know there was a test last november of a minuteman III which typically results in the USAF posting a video somewhere of the launch and initial boost phases. So you can see it in real life. It happens very fast. There is no way of targeting the warheads once the boosters break off and the warheads break away. Once the re-entry vehicle is deployed and it begins its decent over the target- it's over. You can't stop the bomb from going off at that point. It will detonate at a specific altitude and that's it. I suppose depending on its design and when the bomb 'arms', it would be possible to stop it while it's falling by knocking it off course but there's no way of knowing and again, without a way to track it while it travels, before it re-enters and without knowing where it will re-enter....it's just not good. I'm saying all of this because Saddams access to existing missile technology, people who sell the required materials to build missiles and launch systems, the wide open space in which to conduct tests and build silo's, plus Iran's nuclear capability was just.......bad. There's no word to describe it. A single ICBM can carry up to ten warheads that each have a different target. Standard warheads would be bad enough. Nuclear warheads would be....awful. In either case, from launch to detonation is less than 30 minutes. There is significant anti-missile research being done and all kinds of legitimately promising things are in the works. But right now- there isn't anything we can do but prevent the wrong people from ever building these things. No one wants to invade countries and spend the money and time and kill people in the process. But the choice is between doing that, or the incomprehensible alternative. If you think that it's unlikely anyone would ever launch a missile at the US- It already happened. 9/11 was an attack with multiple targets. A ballistic missile is just a more accurate and more destructive way of doing the exact same thing from a distance-without suicide bombers or difficult logistics. So basically, the questions you asked me might mean one thing to you, but they don't mean the same thing to me. We obviously don't think about things the same way and will never, ever agree on this subject. |
||||||
|
No. I definitely do not. |
||||||
|
dmaestro 18-Jan-13, 23:17 |
|
||||||
|
dmaestro 18-Jan-13, 23:19 |
|
||||||
|
tat The Iraqi nation (Hussein) apparently only had capability to send missiles as far as Israel, or did we all read and hear even more lies from the last US administration at the time? WMD were a dupe, an excuse fueled by a couple of nations in the middle east (Iran and Israel) who thought Hussein was getting a little big for his boots and a little too close for comfort. It is well noted that both these said nations are at each others throats right now, both tempting the US yet again! I don't think the current administration are as stupid or out of touch as you think. |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
