Random observations on 9/11

Let just declare a war on everything.

Hand those guns over, del. Bend over and take it, retarded chicken hawk drunk who fails at basic math.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Let just declare a war on everything.

Hand those guns over, del. Bend over and take it, retarded chicken hawk drunk who fails at basic math.

hey, ww1 began because an archduke got killed. might as well start ww3 because of an ambassadors death. i can certainly see the logic in it. we shouldn't take that ****. we absolutely should react quickly, decisively, and emotionally. bomb the bejesus out of them, they have it coming. that's what they get as a country because of a few attackers.

[pointman]

Breaking news that the attack was pre-planned by individuals associated with al-Qaeda with the protest used as a diversion.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/...html?hpt=hp_c1

Looks like Obama's handling of the Arab Spring really needs to be examined to see how what began as protests for Democracy has turned into Muslim control of governments and al-Qaeda base camps.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

Breaking news that the attack was pre-planned by individuals associated with al-Qaeda with the protest used as a diversion.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/...html?hpt=hp_c1

Looks like Obama's handling of the Arab Spring really needs to be examined to see how what began as protests for Democracy has turned into Muslim control of governments and al-Qaeda base camps.

from the end of the article you linked:


Despite concerns over the growing audacity of Salafist-jihadist groups, the victory of secular parties in elections in July had created a measure of optimism about Libya's future.
Benotman tells CNN the reality is that a large majority of Libyans, including the majority of Islamists, are opposed to al Qaeda's ideology of global jihad. He predicts a backlash against the perpetrators of the attack.

"People will curse them for this," he told CNN.



i don't think it's muslim controlled govts you have to worry about, but govts that are in agreement with al qaeda. libya isn't one of those.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

from the end of the article you linked:


Despite concerns over the growing audacity of Salafist-jihadist groups, the victory of secular parties in elections in July had created a measure of optimism about Libya's future.
Benotman tells CNN the reality is that a large majority of Libyans, including the majority of Islamists, are opposed to al Qaeda's ideology of global jihad. He predicts a backlash against the perpetrators of the attack.

"People will curse them for this," he told CNN.



i don't think it's muslim controlled govts you have to worry about, but govts that are in agreement with al qaeda. libya isn't one of those.

Both the Egyptian and Libyan governments have gone to the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaeda has opened camps in Libya since that government cannot fully control its territory. I don't think it is clear that the extremists will not have the power at the end of the day.

Regardless, Obama's failure to support those rising up with the goal of democracy against dictators will likely have a long lasting negative effect. The opportunity was there to support those who wanted to turn their nations into democratic states, but they did not get the expected support from the country that is supposed to be the model for the spread of democracy. With our support and encouragement, it is possible that the Iranians would have joined the Abab Spring to overthrow their theocracy, likely our biggest threat today.

However, Obama is such a weak leader that he was afraid to support these people without the support of the Russians and Chinese who likely are withholding that support because they don't want the spread of democracy and they can make this country look foolish knowing Obama is a weak leader. The result is the message that if people rise against their terrorist and dictatorial governments they can expect no support from the U.S. and its allies. A missed opportunity that will have consequences.

People need to realize that this administration is not only a failure with domestic policies, but foreign as well.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by pointman

Both the Egyptian and Libyan governments have gone to the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaeda has opened camps in Libya since that government cannot fully control its territory. I don't think it is clear that the extremists will not have the power at the end of the day.

Regardless, Obama's failure to support those rising up with the goal of democracy against dictators will likely have a long lasting negative effect. The opportunity was there to support those who wanted to turn their nations into democratic states, but they did not get the expected support from the country that is supposed to be the model for the spread of democracy. With our support and encouragement, it is possible that the Iranians would have joined the Abab Spring to overthrow their theocracy, likely our biggest threat today.

However, Obama is such a weak leader that he was afraid to support these people without the support of the Russians and Chinese who likely are withholding that support because they don't want the spread of democracy and they can make this country look foolish knowing Obama is a weak leader. The result is the message that if people rise against their terrorist and dictatorial governments they can expect no support from the U.S. and its allies. A missed opportunity that will have consequences.

People need to realize that this administration is not only a failure with domestic policies, but foreign as well.

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.

[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?

[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.

[my miss storm cat]

Originally Posted by pointman

Both the Egyptian and Libyan governments have gone to the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Qaeda has opened camps in Libya since that government cannot fully control its territory. I don't think it is clear that the extremists will not have the power at the end of the day.

Regardless, Obama's failure to support those rising up with the goal of democracy against dictators will likely have a long lasting negative effect. The opportunity was there to support those who wanted to turn their nations into democratic states, but they did not get the expected support from the country that is supposed to be the model for the spread of democracy. With our support and encouragement, it is possible that the Iranians would have joined the Abab Spring to overthrow their theocracy, likely our biggest threat today.

However, Obama is such a weak leader that he was afraid to support these people without the support of the Russians and Chinese who likely are withholding that support because they don't want the spread of democracy and they can make this country look foolish knowing Obama is a weak leader. The result is the message that if people rise against their terrorist and dictatorial governments they can expect no support from the U.S. and its allies. A missed opportunity that will have consequences.

People need to realize that this administration is not only a failure with domestic policies, but foreign as well.

This is a great post.

You nailed it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

This is a great post.

You nailed it.

no, he didn't. we helped topple qaddafi, to what end? they had elections, but the 'wrong party' won?
we tried to keep mubarek in power, because it was better for us. but once our govt realized he was going whether we liked it or not, we switched sides. that got us nowhere. it just showed that portion of our foreign policy sucked.
we went into iraq, and that's a mess. so, we're supposed to go into iran? so there's another mess to go with iraq and afganistan? what about bahrain? they want democracy, and we ignore it, because the rulers of bahrain don't want that. so, we placate the rulers because we have a base there. thus, we are ignoring people who supposedly want democracy.
when we support overthrows, and they have elections, some of us don't like the results, because it's the 'wrong kind' of democracy-many are unhappy that the muslim brotherhood won the election. doesn't square with us wanting elections, does it?
lol it's a huge clusterf*ck.

the u.s. government = snafu. and we all know what that means.


and yeah, russia and china are witholding support because of money and power. you know, like we do.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, he didn't. we helped topple qaddafi, to what end? they had elections, but the 'wrong party' won?
we tried to keep mubarek in power, because it was better for us. but once our govt realized he was going whether we liked it or not, we switched sides. that got us nowhere. it just showed that portion of our foreign policy sucked.
we went into iraq, and that's a mess. so, we're supposed to go into iran? so there's another mess to go with iraq and afganistan? what about bahrain? they want democracy, and we ignore it, because the rulers of bahrain don't want that. so, we placate the rulers because we have a base there. thus, we are ignoring people who supposedly want democracy.
when we support overthrows, and they have elections, some of us don't like the results, because it's the 'wrong kind' of democracy-many are unhappy that the muslim brotherhood won the election. doesn't square with us wanting elections, does it?
lol it's a huge clusterf*ck.

the u.s. government = snafu. and we all know what that means.


and yeah, russia and china are witholding support because of money and power. you know, like we do.

you nailed it.

i really dont understand what pointman and miss cat want us to do regarding democracy in other country's that we should have no part of.

Put in our own leaders? Like we did with Saddam, Mubarek and quddafi to begin with? How is that democracy.

Please tell us how to handle foreign policy!

My suggestion is to stay out of it.