Al Qaeda message blames Obama, Egypt for Gaza violence

#26
#26
SavageOrangeJug said:
I think all of you missed the main point.

Obama was going to bring peace with our terrorist enemies. What was the line, "peace through dialogue", or something of that nature. This proves that was total horsesh*t.

What's so funny about it. Obama was smart enough to know from the get go, that is was horsesh*t. It was nothing more than political spiel. These people don't understand reasoning or negotiation.

However, the Obama supporters weren't nearly as perceptive. They bought his political drivel hook, line, and sinker.
Click to expand...

Obama has also stated on numerous occasions he will commit more troops into Afghanistan and hunt down Bin Laden and make this area the emphasis of our military operations...which BTW is supported by many on the right.
 
#29
#29
SavageOrangeJug said:
I think all of you missed the main point.

Obama was going to bring peace with our terrorist enemies. What was the line, "peace through dialogue", or something of that nature. This proves that was total horsesh*t.

What's so funny about it. Obama was smart enough to know from the get go, that is was horsesh*t. It was nothing more than political spiel. These people don't understand reasoning or negotiation.

However, the Obama supporters weren't nearly as perceptive. They bought his political drivel hook, line, and sinker.
Click to expand...

Obama NEVER stated he was going to sit down with Bin Laden. He was speaking of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah along with the possiblilities of sitting down with North Korea
 
#30
#30
BigPapaVol said:
how does that fit with your Bush driven fear comment?
Click to expand...

Why should there be any concern about sitting down with someone? Bush has driven the idea that it is bad for us and we should be scared of talking with anyone outside our current allies.

We don't negotiate with terrorists. That doesn't mean we don't communicate.
 
#32
#32
truefan said:
Obama has also stated on numerous occasions he will commit more troops into Afghanistan and hunt down Bin Laden and make this area the emphasis of our military operations...which BTW is supported by many on the right.
Click to expand...

Bin Laden is not in Afghan territory. How would sending more troops there get Bin Laden?

I agree we need more resources in Afghanistan though.
 
#33
#33
UT IE 95 said:
Why should there be any concern about sitting down with someone? Bush has driven the idea that it is bad for us and we should be scared of talking with anyone outside our current allies.

We don't negotiate with terrorists. That doesn't mean we don't communicate.
Click to expand...

It has been a long time policy not to negotiate with terrorists, not to mention terrorist nations. It didn't start nor will it end with Bush.

Communicating and having a sit down are two different things. Communicating can be done using back channels while giving no legitimacy to terrorists.
 
#34
#34
KB5252 said:
It has been a long time policy not to negotiate with terrorists, not to mention terrorist nations. It didn't start nor will it end with Bush.
Click to expand...

I think the point was that just because we don't negotiate doesn't mean we can't communicate though.
 
#37
#37
emainvol said:
I think the point was that just because we don't negotiate doesn't mean we can't communicate though.
Click to expand...

when it comes to terrorists, our only negotiating tool should either have a sharp point or goes boom!
 
#41
#41
Well, we can't just ignore Al Qaeda, but our media and the media of other nations do seem to enjoy giving them a voice. The problem faced by Bush, and any president following him, is that Al Qaeda is a small target. It isn't like we can just bust into some mythical Al-Qaedastan and bury them in a blaze of glory. I know Obama is talking this that and the other, and I know I'm a big supporter, but I don't see him catching Bin Laden without some kind of covert mission simply based on how they are operating...and if that were possible I'm sure Bush would have done it already, short-comings not withstanding.
 
#42
#42
SavageOrangeJug said:
I think all of you missed the main point.

Obama was going to bring peace with our terrorist enemies. What was the line, "peace through dialogue", or something of that nature. This proves that was total horsesh*t.

What's so funny about it. Obama was smart enough to know from the get go, that is was horsesh*t. It was nothing more than political spiel. These people don't understand reasoning or negotiation.

However, the Obama supporters weren't nearly as perceptive. They bought his political drivel hook, line, and sinker.
Click to expand...

:crazy:
 
#43
#43
TreeGreen said:
Well, we can't just ignore Al Qaeda, but our media and the media of other nations do seem to enjoy giving them a voice. The problem faced by Bush, and any president following him, is that Al Qaeda is a small target. It isn't like we can just bust into some mythical Al-Qaedastan and bury them in a blaze of glory. I know Obama is talking this that and the other, and I know I'm a big supporter, but I don't see him catching Bin Laden without some kind of covert mission simply based on how they are operating...and if that were possible I'm sure Bush would have done it already, short-comings not withstanding.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There are many reasons we haven't captured Bin Laden. It would take a covert mission. Problem is that Bin Laden surrounds himself in Pakistan with very loyal extremists in tribal regions where the Pakistani government has little or no authority and no teeth to speak of. Add that to the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear country and any invasion could lead to a very tenuous situation in a very unstable region.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top