Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Despite Obama's claim AQ is not on the run, they are expanding-and it was NOT a video that incited that attack. These are facts.
You didn't say "Victor is a poor source"???Didn't blame the source.
Who are you talking about now and what did they say that you would call them 'idiots'?But why do you guys think idiots should be called what they are?
Yes, every time you look in the mirror.I certainly recognize liberal dumbass ****.
Do you have the numbers available?AQ has never been on the run. We grew them with the invasion of Iraq. But both presidents spew that lie.
Short kived? How long did they use that excuse and when did they realize what really happened? Any idea?The video thing was a short lived explanation.
Do you have the 'facts' regarding the actual dates?It is also a fact that it was dropped very soon after being presented. Clinton stated it wasn't the video very early and then administration followed suit. That too is simply a fact.
Seriously now. You really have no idea what was going on concerning Benghazi or the lies or the aftermath, right? That is the only possible explanation of why you are claiming 'facts' without actually pointing them out. Instead you use non specific terms entirely, and falsely, unrelated to any 'facts' whatsoever.So, when they admit the error, do so quickly, explain why you still focus on it? Can you understand why this makes you guys look silly?
No. Keep your ODS in check as I made no mention of Obama.
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Qaddafi sponsored the bombing over Lockerbie in which many Americans died. Libya attacked us and just because there was a delayed response doesn't change that fact. Why do the deaths of Americans mean nothing to you?
AQ has never been on the run. We grew them with the invasion of Iraq. But both presidents spew that lie.
The video thing was a short lived explanation. It is also a fact that it was dropped very soon after being presented. Clinton stated it wasn't the video very early and then administration followed suit. That too is simply a fact.
So, when they admit the error, do so quickly, explain why you still focus on it? Can you understand why this makes you guys look silly?
Do you have the numbers available?
Short kived? How long did they use that excuse and when did they realize what really happened? Any idea?
Do you have the 'facts' regarding the actual dates?
Seriously now. You really have no idea what was going on concerning Benghazi or the lies or the aftermath, right? That is the only possible explanation of why you are claiming 'facts' without actually pointing them out. Instead you use non specific terms entirely, and falsely, unrelated to any 'facts' whatsoever.
"AQ core" ( Pakistan) is degraded, but Zawahiri is doing just fine - AQAP (Yemen) is a big threat, as are the various "AQ affiliates" in Syria/Iraq.
Libyan weapons were all over Syria -prolly still are, but not being smuggled out anymore that I know of since Bengazi.
Libya is a "terrorist state" ( my words) since we assassinated Qaddafi -allowed the rise of Ansar al-Sharia , even as Qaddafi warned us the jihadists would flow to N. Africa.
It was a disasterous war for the Libyan people, Africa, ME, and we did it to ourselves.
The lame duck will be gone in a few years but can America elected a strong experienced leader once BHO is history? What if Hillary Clinton becomes President?
The next Presidential election isn't just about the American people, though I can understand many Americans wanting it so. Instead it has huge international implications.
appreciate the concerns, but would respectfully ask you to consider what "strong leader" means. China practices hegemony but doesn't get into far flung wars. They excel at soft power -
they will do business with anyone, and not worry about our ideas of what type of people/government we are dealing with.
The quick definition of neocon is spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun. If we've learned nothing else since 9-11, it is that this is a failed idea.
We should expand our influences, but with so called soft power, and hold our military back for strategic defense.
The Decline of America's Soft Power | Foreign Affairs
Some of us are just Dear Leaders men.
:roll:
More of the absurd "Dear Leader" Obama-worship bull**** that conservatives have been spewing for the last five years and has virtually no basis in reality. Carry on.
Except its spot on. Never in my life have I heard the excuses made for Obama and the democrat party of late. Its remarkable, and you know its based in reality.
Who do we think of when we think of strong American leaders? FDR? Truman? Eisenhower? Reagan? Party affiliation is often less important than the competence of the leader and the ability to communicate with the American people in a straightforward manner. Being able to work with the Senate and Congress is also essential.appreciate the concerns, but would respectfully ask you to consider what "strong leader" means. China practices hegemony but doesn't get into far flung wars. They excel at soft power - they will do business with anyone, and not worry about our ideas of what type of people/government we are dealing with.
Maybe the idea has some merit but its implementation has not been carried out well. When going to war winning is everything while going for the hearts and minds is a fool's mission. Someone once said that if you grab them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow, and I agree with this idea.The quick definition of neocon is spreading democracy at the barrel of a gun. If we've learned nothing else since 9-11, it is that this is a failed idea.
We should expand our influences, but with so called soft power, and hold our military back for strategic defense.
The Decline of America's Soft Power | Foreign Affairs
You didn't say "Victor is a poor source"???
Who are you talking about now and what did they say that you would call them 'idiots'?
Do you have the numbers available?
Short kived? How long did they use that excuse and when did they realize what really happened? Any idea?
Do you have the 'facts' regarding the actual dates?
Seriously now. You really have no idea what was going on concerning Benghazi or the lies or the aftermath, right? That is the only possible explanation of why you are claiming 'facts' without actually pointing them out. Instead you use non specific terms entirely, and falsely, unrelated to any 'facts' whatsoever.
It was a lie of political convenience, and much like the new push to delay further implementation of the ACA until AFTER 2016, absolutely and stunningly transparent. And its not going away, even if some would like to think so.
Who do we think of when we think of strong American leaders? FDR? Truman? Eisenhower? Reagan? Party affiliation is often less important than the competence of the leader and the ability to communicate with the American people in a straightforward manner. Being able to work with the Senate and Congress is also essential.
Every now and then another nation becomes a power competitor with the US, such as China is now. At an earlier time it was Russia, or Japan. And each time this happens it's suggested that America should adopt some of their habits. I never did agree with any of that. Americans, if they continue to support freedom, the free market, and free enterprise. will always excel. If they adopt the habits of other countries they will falter. It is the freest markets, which utilize the power of the people, which do best.
Maybe the idea has some merit but its implementation has not been carried out well. When going to war winning is everything while going for the hearts and minds is a fool's mission. Someone once said that if you grab them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow, and I agree with this idea.
The military can be used offensively but it has come to be used politically, not to actually win wars. Many lives have been lost and billions of dollars spent and all for nothing, simply because politics trumped the idea of victory. As well there are those who will support any malevolent movement or dictator who is working against a free peoples interest, and their power should never be underestimated.
These are just a few off the cuff thoughts and I'd like to hear your opinion, for or against.
So no numbers, huh? Just your word.Oh hell, numbers have been posted for better than a decade now. how many times before you see and recognize them?
You are making the claim so you should use the available numbers to support your claim.Frankly not very long. Do you need a timeline provided, or are you capable of looking it up?
All you have to do is provide evidence when you make your silly claims.Just as everyone else does. All you have to is look.
I don't believe you understand at all. if you did you'd supply evidence. Facts don't care which political 'side' anyone is on. Supply hard facts or don't make any foolish claims. That shouldn't be so difficult to understand.I understand both what happened and how your side exaggerates it.
The first thing to do is determine who the enemy really is. Was it Saddam in Iraq? If that is the case why is there still violence there now that Saddam and the troops have been removed? The same is true of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I suspect a large part of the problem is a reluctance to actually name the enemy and, in the war, designated borders are of less concern than traditional wars. In fact traditional wars are no longer feasible in the modern age. In fact in this ongoing 'hearts and minds' war the Muslim terrorists seem to be faring better than Americans.Afghanistan/Libya and to an extent Iraq were civil wars - Iraq less so, but our fracturing of Saddam rule allowed the sectarian divide to bubble up.
No, because it depends on the war and it's likelihood of spreading. That idea has been around for a long while, and often leads to even bigger wars.SO the first lesson has to be to stay out of foreign civil war.
Which 'sides' are you referring too and whose 'side' are we on?we tried to pick sides, and the sides have to fight it out for themselves -it's stupid to tie us prestige/security to these nations.
At one time armies fought each other in that manner and 'hearts and minds' were of no concern whatsoever. But the Communists realized that propaganda can work wonders by undermining the opposition by other means. Although they couldn't run an economy they were masters in the art of convincing people that their freedoms sucked and that totalitarianism was really the way to go. Other groups, particularly militant Muslims, certainly recognized this strategy. We need only look at Iraq where the Coalition, through military means, won areas that now have the Al Qaeda flag flying above them. That's because AQ didn't bother with the hearts and minds argument at all. That is only a recent, and rather juvenile, strategy.what is the mission in war? is it conquering the land -then yes go all out, like WWII, but if it's pacification, then you do need to win hearts and minds.
Exactly. terrorists can shrug these poff easily while the claim can also be made that we are genuinely fighting terrorism.kina hard to win hearts and minds with errant airstrikes and drone strikes.
Right. The technology is there to just drop a couple and then after a day or two ask if they want more. Peace can come quickly if a genuine and serious response is made. WWII proved that. WWI proved the opposite.we had to hit the terrorist in AfPak, but we didn't have to have huge land forces.
Right!In Libya, we should have had though "OK if we take out Qaddafi whom is going to fill the void?"
I don't know whose advice was followed instead. The US was 'leading from the rear' so someone in the Obama administration should know.Qaddafi himself warned us, how in the hell we think Libya was going to form a stable self government is beyond reason.
Most every democracy uses soft power. I read that opinion piece you submitted but it could have been written decades ago.As to China, the point was to do business to advance our interests, without getting bogged down in what kind of government we are doing business with - so called soft power advances our prosperity and influence without war
Iraq was a problem for the region, but also a bulwark under Saddam to check Iran. Now Iraq is a virtual colony of Iran. We stepped in and changed a vey big dynamicThe first thing to do is determine who the enemy really is. Was it Saddam in Iraq? If that is the case why is there still violence there now that Saddam and the troops have been removed? The same is true of the Taliban in Afghanistan. I suspect a large part of the problem is a reluctance to actually name the enemy and, in the war, designated borders are of less concern than traditional wars. In fact traditional wars are no longer feasible in the modern age. In fact in this ongoing 'hearts and minds' war the Muslim terrorists seem to be faring better than Americans.
if you look at the recent history of Libya. Iraq, and Afghanistan they are all civil wars. Yemen is coming out of one. In Yemen we use a COUNTERTERRORISM strategy - it's too wide and includesNo, because it depends on the war and it's likelihood of spreading. That idea has been around for a long while, and often leads to even bigger wars.
we are fighting the Afgan Taliban, and droning the Paki Taliban.Which 'sides' are you referring too and whose 'side' are we on?
I think I answered Iraq for youAt one time armies fought each other in that manner and 'hearts and minds' were of no concern whatsoever. But the Communists realized that propaganda can work wonders by undermining the opposition by other means. Although they couldn't run an economy they were masters in the art of convincing people that their freedoms sucked and that totalitarianism was really the way to go. Other groups, particularly militant Muslims, certainly recognized this strategy. We need only look at Iraq where the Coalition, through military means, won areas that now have the Al Qaeda flag flying above them. That's because AQ didn't bother with the hearts and minds argument at all. That is only a recent, and rather juvenile, strategy.
Exactly. terrorists can shrug these poff easily while the claim can also be made that we are genuinely fighting terrorism.
Right. The technology is there to just drop a couple and then after a day or two ask if they want more. Peace can come quickly if a genuine and serious response is made. WWII proved that. WWI proved the opposite.
Right!
I don't know whose advice was followed instead. The US was 'leading from the rear' so someone in the Obama administration should know.
we do, but we rely far too much on hard power.Most every democracy uses soft power. I read that opinion piece you submitted but it could have been written decades ago.
That's not blaming it. That's calling it what it is. I also answered him.
You, j, conservative, and others use highly questionable sources that no logical person would use. From the American non-Thinker to NRO, that are chronically inaccurate and hyperbolic as well as hyper partisan.
So no numbers, huh? Just your word.
You are making the claim so you should use the available numbers to support your claim.
All you have to do is provide evidence when you make your silly claims.
I don't believe you understand at all. if you did you'd supply evidence. Facts don't care which political 'side' anyone is on. Supply hard facts or don't make any foolish claims. That shouldn't be so difficult to understand.
That's just it, no one cares what you think of the particular source. You too often use this excuse to not address the debate. It's tiring.
Do you realize how weak that is? Seriously?
Not hard:
Sept. 11: The Attack
2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time):
(snip)
Sept. 12: After his Rose Garden speech, Obama tapes an interview for “60 Minutes.” Obama says he didn’t use the word “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech because “it’s too early to know exactly how this came about.” Steve Kroft, the show’s host, wonders how the attack could be described as a “mob action” since the attackers were “very heavily armed.” Obama says “we’re still investigating,” but he suspects “folks involved in this . . . were looking to target Americans from the start.”
(snip)
Sept. 13: CNN reports that unnamed “State Department officials” say the incident in Benghazi was a “clearly planned military-type attack” unrelated to the anti-Muslim movie.
CNN: “It was not an innocent mob,” one senior official said. “The video or 9/11 made a handy excuse and could be fortuitous from their perspective but this was a clearly planned military-type attack.”
(snip)
Sept. 18: Obama Says ‘Extremists’ Used Video As ‘Excuse’
(snip)
Sept. 21: Clinton Calls It a ‘Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 21: Clinton, speaking to reporters before a meeting with Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar, calls it a “terrorist attack” for the first time. She says, “Yesterday afternoon when I briefed the Congress, I made it clear that keeping our people everywhere in the world safe is our top priority. What happened in Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and we will not rest until we have tracked down and brought to justice the terrorists who murdered four Americans.”
(snip)
Sept. 26: ‘Let’s Be Clear, It Was a Terrorist Attack’
Sept. 26: Carney is asked at a press briefing aboard Air Force One en route to Ohio why the president has not called the Benghazi incident a “terrorist attack.” He said, “The president — our position is, as reflected by the NCTC director, that it was a terrorist attack. It is, I think by definition, a terrorist attack when there is a prolonged assault on an embassy with weapons. … So, let’s be clear, it was a terrorist attack and it was an inexcusable attack.”
So, at first there are questions, then on the 18th Obama says it's the tape. Then on 21st Clinton corrects him. That's 3 days. On the 26th, less than 10 days, Obama says it was a terrorist attack. I think that clearly shows it was not a long interval.
As shown above, you clear exaggerate it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?