Random observations on 9/11

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

what was Obama supposed to do?

Didnt he basically have Ghadaffi killed? (spelling?)

Were we supposed to continue to support Mubarek who had billions in personal wealth while egyptians live off of $2 per day?

Bush already tried the spread of democracy thing in Iraq... look where that got us.

People might think Ron Paul is crazy when it comes to foreign policy, but I think he's correct.

Obama is not the problem. The two party system is the problem.

There are many things he could have done. He could have publically thrown U.S. support behind those uprising for Democracy. He could have thrown public support behind the Iranian's who were starting to form protests but who quickly quit without our support. He could have formed coalitions with countries other than China and Russia to help send arms, logistics, training and support to those uprising against their tyranny and helped them do the work that we need for our security. He could have provided no fly zones and given those fighting on the ground the opportunity to even the playing field.

Instead, he has let the poor Syrian's languish and die daily in their fight for democracy and has given Bashar al-Assad the opportunity to kill off any opposition to his government and strengthen his bond with Iran. Even publically supporting these people and letting them know the U.S. was with them likely would have made a big difference instead of idly standing by.

Other countries have come to expect the U.S. to act like leaders. Instead of acting like a leader, he deferred to let the U.N. to take action that they are not prepared to take and now we have a huge failure which may result in at least parts of some of these countries turning into terrorist camps to further harm our security. That is not a leader.

It will be interesting to see what the response will be the killing of one of our diplomats, I am not too confident it will be a swift and appropriate measure to deter others from doing so.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

There are many things he could have done. He could have publically thrown U.S. support behind those uprising for Democracy. He could have thrown public support behind the Iranian's who were starting to form protests but who quickly quit without our support. He could have formed coalitions with countries other than China and Russia to help send arms, logistics, training and support to those uprising against their tyranny and helped them do the work that we need for our security. He could have provided no fly zones and given those fighting on the ground the opportunity to even the playing field.

Instead, he has let the poor Syrian's languish and die daily in their fight for democracy and has given Bashar al-Assad the opportunity to kill off any opposition to his government and strengthen his bond with Iran. Even publically supporting these people and letting them know the U.S. was with them likely would have made a big difference instead of idly standing by.

Other countries have come to expect the U.S. to act like leaders. Instead of acting like a leader, he deferred to let the U.N. to take action that they are not prepared to take and now we have a huge failure which may result in at least parts of some of these countries turning into terrorist camps to further harm our security. That is not a leader.

It will be interesting to see what the response will be the killing of one of our diplomats, I am not too confident it will be a swift and appropriate measure to deter others from doing so.

but, what is the point in supporting democracy, if we are then going to bitch about what party takes power in those countries? that doesn't make much sense to me.
as for the attacks on the embassies, exactly what do you feel is swift or appropriate?

[my miss storm cat]

Out of here and nowhere near as educated and eloquent as others obviously but sure okay you're right and the next time anyone tries to stand up to Ahmadinejad, for example, let's just keep our mouths shut and watch.

Obama is the President and leader of the free world.

Those people needed to know they were being heard and he was silent.

Way to go.

Out of here.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Out of here and nowhere near as educated and eloquent as others obviously but sure okay you're right and the next time anyone tries to stand up to Ahmadinejad, for example, let's just keep our mouths shut and watch.

Obama is the President and leader of the free world.

Those people needed to know they were being heard and he was silent.

Way to go.

Out of here.

i'd rather you answer my questions. show me where i'm incorrect in my thinking.
if we go and support democracy, and the muslim brotherhood is elected by the majority, would you feel that we succeeded? because pointman says we should support democracy, but then lists the two cases where elections were held, and complains about who was voted in. that's not logical.

and, no, obama is NOT the leader of the free world. he's the president of the u.s.
we can't say we are supporters of democracy. look at mubarek in the early stages of the egypt uprising. look at bahrain. two examples where our foreign policy doesn't match our supposed ideals. look at our support, for years, for saddam hussein. that didn't square with our 'mission statement' either.

i'd say much of our foreign policy is based on the same thing as our domestic.

follow the money.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Out of here and nowhere near as educated and eloquent as others obviously but sure okay you're right and the next time anyone tries to stand up to Ahmadinejad, for example, let's just keep our mouths shut and watch.

Obama is the President and leader of the free world.

Those people needed to know they were being heard and he was silent.

Way to go.

Out of here.

Obama is the President of the United States of America. just a correction there.

Sure, lets fight Iran. That's just what we need. Why not go to war with China and Russia while we're at it. World War 3 is the answer.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

Way to go.

Out of here.

I do want you to know that when i said "stay out of it"... I didnt mean anyones opinion here. that we should stay out of the middle east.. thats what i meant.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I do want you to know that when i said "stay out of it"... I didnt mean anyones opinion here. that we should stay out of the middle east.. thats what i meant.

Oh I know, don't worry.

Mitt Romney is an idiot.

He exists because cults gain power and influence. His success is due to a strong family line with connections to a cult that masterfully made themselves appear as a Rockwell painting.

This is one of the worst elections of our republic.

I'm sickened by what we've become.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Mitt Romney is an idiot.

He exists because cults gain power and influence. His success is due to a strong family line with connections to a cult that masterfully made themselves appear as a Rockwell painting.

This is one of the worst elections of our republic.

I'm sickened by what we've become.

Here's the real problem..... MSM and their bias.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...ypt_libya.html


what else are they covering up or shading the truth on ?

Derka derka derka oi oi oi

or something.

Way to go Shillary!!

Four Chinese ships have entered Japanese waters near a group of disputed islets claimed by both Beijing and Tokyo, refusing to follow the Japanese coast guard's orders to vacate its territorial waters.
Currently, four Chinese ships are stationed in the area, which Japan considers its territorial waters.Another four ships are stationed outside the disputed area.

http://rt.com/news/chinese-ships-bre...al-border-101/

I'm sure it's no big deal.

Ugh.

[geeker2]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

http://rt.com/news/chinese-ships-bre...al-border-101/

I'm sure it's no big deal.

Ugh.

Eve of Destruction

[DaTruth]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

http://rt.com/news/chinese-ships-bre...al-border-101/

I'm sure it's no big deal.

Ugh.

The real action is going to be a little farther south, where there are ever larger deposits of oil and gas, as well as some shipping lanes that the Chinese navy can easily block.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

http://rt.com/news/chinese-ships-bre...al-border-101/

I'm sure it's no big deal.

Ugh.

just keeps getting better and better, doesn't it?

[Danzig]

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...-thwarted?lite


these types of stories just don't get enough attention. things like this are how we should be handling the 'war on terror'. should also remind people that other countries are taking this fight against militants seriously, and aren't just standing idly by, letting muslim extremists ruin their way of life.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but, what is the point in supporting democracy, if we are then going to bitch about what party takes power in those countries? that doesn't make much sense to me.
as for the attacks on the embassies, exactly what do you feel is swift or appropriate?

I think that you missed my point. What I am saying is that Obama's lack of real support for the Arab Spring was a missed opportunity for us which could have spread in a big way and is becoming an opportunity that terrorists are seizing upon. While I hope that you are right and the vast majority of Libyan's really don't agree with global jihad, the jury is still out at this point as to who is really going to have control. Hopefully both Egypt and Libya will have democracies, but it appears that our willingness to stay out of it for the most part is allowing dictatorial factions against our interests the opportunity to grab control of the government.

The lack of support for the Iranian Arab Spring is indefensible IMO. Obama did not have Gaddafi killed, we were just one part of a coalition that provided no-fly zones which led to his killing.

Egypt is not a democracy yet, the military is still running that country, it remains to be seen if real democracy will occur there. As for swift action, those responsible must hunted down and be held accountable to send the message that violence against our embassies and diplomats will not be tolerated.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by pointman

. As for swift action, those responsible must hunted down and be held accountable to send the message that violence against our embassies and diplomats will not be tolerated.

I'd like to see Libyian leaders and Libyian military hunt down and hold accountable the murderous people from yesterday. Now maybe that could send a message.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

I think that you missed my point. What I am saying is that Obama's lack of real support for the Arab Spring was a missed opportunity for us which could have spread in a big way and is becoming an opportunity that terrorists are seizing upon. While I hope that you are right and the vast majority of Libyan's really don't agree with global jihad, the jury is still out at this point as to who is really going to have control. Hopefully both Egypt and Libya will have democracies, but it appears that our willingness to stay out of it for the most part is allowing dictatorial factions against our interests the opportunity to grab control of the government.

The lack of support for the Iranian Arab Spring is indefensible IMO. Obama did not have Gaddafi killed, we were just one part of a coalition that provided no-fly zones which led to his killing.

Egypt is not a democracy yet, the military is still running that country, it remains to be seen if real democracy will occur there. As for swift action, those responsible must hunted down and be held accountable to send the message that violence against our embassies and diplomats will not be tolerated.

yes, it was a missed opportunity in that we first tried to keep mubarek in power. he missed the boat on that one, and then tried to change course. that only painted us in a worse light.
and yes, nato was the predominant force in libya. however, i feel that we have stretched ourselves too thin, into too many directions, and gotten involved outside of our 'sphere of influence' which for decades was north america alone. makes you wonder why we try to so hard to have all these allies, if we're still going to 'go it alone' and fund so much of this on our own. we've made so many errors in foreign policy for so long...it's not something we can fix overnight. but i think the first thing we should do is pull back.
the second thing we should do is be consistent. we are ignoring some damned good advice from some who came before. we were cautioned about getting involved in european affairs, those countries have been fighting each other for a couple millenia. we were also told 'don't have constant allies' and that's also a good point. just because someone is an ally, doesn't mean they're always right, or that we should always support them. it keeps you from standing for what's right, which demeans you in the end.
the spanish american war was fought because of our interests here. ww 1 was not. ww 2 was a mess, with ww1 being a big catalyst for two. we shouldn't have ever gotten involved in 'nam, which was caused by whom? france. what as ww1 over? europe and her empires. it had nothing to do with us, or our interests. we weren't a superpower until after ww2-but we managed to turn the tide in not one, but two conflagrations even tho we had next to no army leading up to both of those wars.
now look at us. and what has been gained, here, by us being everywhere? joseph stalin was our 'ally' in ww2. why? that's absurd. did you see the news yesterday, where the u.s. and u.k. willingly covered up the murder of thousands of poles by the russians, that we blamed the nazis? because we didn't want to 'alienate' our ally. he needed us far more than we needed him. that's when we started all that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' crap, and where are we now? look at all the years after ww2. we had a war started because germany invaded poland. hello! russian then invaded poland. decades of cold war from our erstwhile ally.
afganistan, largest recipient of foreign aid from us in the years leading to 9-11. we supported them vs the ussr, and for what? where did that get us? nowhere.
saddam hussein, dictator, an 'ally' during their war with iran.
mubarak, dictator, an ally in egypt. it makes no sense. and you want us more involved?

sorry, i completely disagree with that. we need to go back to how we were in the years before ww1. here, until absolutely, positively needed. and meanwhile, a country that others will want to emulate. but we need to quit thinking we should have a finger in every damned pie that comes down the pike.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by pointman

There are many things he could have done. He could have publically thrown U.S. support behind those uprising for Democracy. He could have thrown public support behind the Iranian's who were starting to form protests but who quickly quit without our support. He could have formed coalitions with countries other than China and Russia to help send arms, logistics, training and support to those uprising against their tyranny and helped them do the work that we need for our security. He could have provided no fly zones and given those fighting on the ground the opportunity to even the playing field.

Instead, he has let the poor Syrian's languish and die daily in their fight for democracy and has given Bashar al-Assad the opportunity to kill off any opposition to his government and strengthen his bond with Iran. Even publically supporting these people and letting them know the U.S. was with them likely would have made a big difference instead of idly standing by.

Other countries have come to expect the U.S. to act like leaders. Instead of acting like a leader, he deferred to let the U.N. to take action that they are not prepared to take and now we have a huge failure which may result in at least parts of some of these countries turning into terrorist camps to further harm our security. That is not a leader.

It will be interesting to see what the response will be the killing of one of our diplomats, I am not too confident it will be a swift and appropriate measure to deter others from doing so.

so more war?

i swear I remember Obama calling the order to bomb Libya (why do I always think of woman parts when typing that country's name? lol) to support the people who wanted to overthrow the government.

Syria is hypocritical... why not intervene there when we intervened in Libya?? Syrians are not as important to us maybe? I dont know.. it seems hypocritical on our administrations part. I do know our goverment has thrown its verbal support behind the rebels in Syria, just not fire power support.

Personally, I dont want to mess with China or Russia. Doesnt seem like a smart thing to do at all.

We dont own the middle east... there are no American States or territories there. Either we are going to support every damn thing with our military and tax money or not. It's a tough situation. Nothing you posted above seem to be better solutions than what has already been done, IMO. Just more money and more lives.

Ron Paul! Lets protect our borders with the best of our strengths.

I'm tired of being the world police, the world "leader". If you look throughout history, once a country becomes the "world leader" it is ALL downhill from there.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so more war?

i swear I remember Obama calling the order to bomb Libya (why do I always think of woman parts when typing that country's name? lol) to support the people who wanted to overthrow the government.

Syria is hypocritical... why not intervene there when we intervened in Libya?? Syrians are not as important to us maybe? I dont know.. it seems hypocritical on our administrations part. I do know our goverment has thrown its verbal support behind the rebels in Syria, just not fire power support.

Personally, I dont want to mess with China or Russia. Doesnt seem like a smart thing to do at all.

We dont own the middle east... there are no American States or territories there. Either we are going to support every damn thing with our military and tax money or not. It's a tough situation. Nothing you posted above seem to be better solutions than what has already been done, IMO. Just more money and more lives.

Ron Paul! Lets protect our borders with the best of our strengths.

I'm tired of being the world police, the world "leader". If you look throughout history, once a country becomes the "world leader" it is ALL downhill from there.

It did not have to be war, but more support for those trying to overthrow these terrorist governments and help in organizing true democracies instead of sitting on the sidelines. You touched on my point with Syria, we have sent no clear message to anyone and no analyzation can justify action in Libya but no action in Syria. Isolationism is worst possible policy and has never worked. Look where it got us with Hitler.