Bush Can't But Its OK for this Obama Guy???

[NavyBlue]

Okay, if you can help start the financing for my campaign. :hatsoff:

Sorry, but my money will be going toward Obama's reelection campaign. :tongue:

 

[Facetious]

No, there is a difference. Under Bush Afghanistan became a distant second priority. Obama plans to make it his first.

All fair game, however, I look at anything that has to do with Afghanistan as a lost cause. It has something to do with their #1 export.

 

[Will E Worm]

Sorry, but my money will be going toward Obama's reelection campaign. :tongue:

Your money, you can waste it anyway you wish. :tongue:

 

[TheAdmiral]

Didn't you know, Democrats can never do wrong?

They are God's gift to us. :tongue:

Even though Obama's inauguration is going to be triple what Bush's was.

I don't care for either party. They are both the same party and puppets on a string.

I've noticed this too

 

[Will E Worm]

I've noticed this too

Good. I wish more people would wake up.

 

[Gordar]

edit: deleted my post.

 

[maildude]

Flush out Terrorist groups????
Do you have any idea about the state of poverty of that country???
The Bush administration has done one HELL of a job over the past 8 years convincing the world of this nonsense.
Please.
They live in clay homes, caves, and have been invaded by so many outside forces for hundreds of years, their civil infrastructure is barely holding the country together. Let alone us being there.
We have NO business there.

Yet they manage to infiltrate the US and kill thousands. They're in the same focus as other starving countries like Somalia and North Korea.

 

[STDiva]

I don't recall ever supporting staying in Iraq, now did I? By attacking Afghanistan, N.A.T.O. removed a terrorist organization from power. They may not like it, but that doesn't matter. They don't have the same power that they used to, and that's because we went in there and kicked them out. I'm not talking about Iraq, I'm talking about Afghanistan. I'm talking about the place that actually deserved to be liberated from their governement. They are better off now because N.A.T.O. went in, trust me. I don't give two shits about Iraq, because I've never served in Iraq and I never will. But Afghanistan is a worthy cause, irregardless of what anyone is going to tell you.

irregardless is not a word

 

[ratbastid]

Should Afghanistan be left alone so that the Mullahs (non-Taliban, but still Tribal) can grow their poppy plants to continue the heroin trade?

Or, should we take the opportunity to burn the poppy fields and introduce "beneficial farming" to Afghanistan?

We may not be able to capture/kill Osama because of W.'s fuck up. Destroying the Taliban might not be enough if we turn a blind eye to the poppy trade.

Noone else is stopping their poppy growing...as in the 'rest of the world'.
Why do we even have to be there??
They are poor as shit!!
and of course they are killing our soldiers, They Are Defending THEIR Country from INVADERS!!
And as far as "destroying the Taliban" lol, again, you are a victim of New World Order planning: Convince the American people [our] reasons are justified. Use Terror, Use Fear. The blind majority will [soon] out number the cynics..../that's what they are counting on

 

[robbied196]

From a UK perspective, don't forget that Bin Laden and the Mujahideen were trained by the SAS to fight against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. The Soviets were there for 9 years and lost 13,836 soldiers but eventually withdraw because of the financial cost. They say the best lessons are learned from history, I don't think Britain or the U.S.A is prepared for those kinds of casualties or the continued financial implications. There has been a world Morphine shortage for many years, much of which previously came from Afghanistan's poppy production alongside India's! The only reason its changed to heroin production is to fund the war, catch 22!?

 

[No_Man]

March 15, 2001: Jane's Information Group reveals intelligence suggesting that the U.S. is planning an attack on Afghanistan.

September 9, 2001: A National Security Presidential Directive is issued outlining a war plan against Afghanistan.

September 11, 2001: Four planes are hijacked and flown into the WTC, Pentagon, and rural PA.

September 16, 2001: Osama bin Laden denies responsibility for the attacks.

September 18, 2001: President Bush states that there is "irrefutable evidence" that bin Laden coordinated an Al Qaeda on the U.S., despite the fact that bin Laden has denied involvement, something he's never previously done following an Al Qaeda attack (i.e. 1992 attempted bombing in Yemen, 1993 bombing in Somalia). No evidence of bin Laden's involvement is brought forward.

December 13, 2001: A videotape showing bin Laden discussing the 9/11 attacks appears in the press. The U.S. government claims the translation reveals bin Laden had foreknowledge of the attacks. Arabic language experts insist that the government translation is completely wrong at key points.

November 2001: The UK Office of the Prime Minister issues a report detailing past Al Qaeda activities and states that this constitutes clear evidence of their involvement in 9/11. No new evidence is actually brought forward.

February 6, 2002: The FBI states that the evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks is "clear and irrefutable." No evidence is brought forward.

October 29, 2004: A videotape is released in which Osama bin Laden claims full responsibility for the 9/11 attacks for the first time, over 3 years later. The tape is released 4 days before the presidential election and a poll taken after its airing shows a significant increase in President Bush's popularity over Senator Kerry, giving him a 6 point lead in the election. Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin even states, "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President."


So here's the progression:

+ The Bush administration plans an attack on Afghanistan for at least 6 months, but doesn't carry it out.
+ The Bush administration pins responsibility for 9/11 on Osama bin Laden without revealing any evidence or confession.
+ The Bush administration justifies an attack on Afghanistan with the logic that they're harboring bin Laden.
+ The Bush administration gets reelected by the conveniently timed confession of Osama bin Laden 3 years later.

All of this by an administration proven to use propaganda and manipulation of intelligence to justify an attack on Iraq.

Things that make you go, "Hmm...."

 

[SN4P3]

at least the people who bitch and moan about bush being president can now shut up. they got their Chance, they better not scew it up

 

[ratbastid]

March 15, 2001: Jane's Information Group reveals intelligence suggesting that the U.S. is planning an attack on Afghanistan.

September 9, 2001: A National Security Presidential Directive is issued outlining a war plan against Afghanistan.

September 11, 2001: Four planes are hijacked and flown into the WTC, Pentagon, and rural PA.

September 16, 2001: Osama bin Laden denies responsibility for the attacks.

September 18, 2001: President Bush states that there is "irrefutable evidence" that bin Laden coordinated an Al Qaeda on the U.S., despite the fact that bin Laden has denied involvement, something he's never previously done following an Al Qaeda attack (i.e. 1992 attempted bombing in Yemen, 1993 bombing in Somalia). No evidence of bin Laden's involvement is brought forward.

December 13, 2001: A videotape showing bin Laden discussing the 9/11 attacks appears in the press. The U.S. government claims the translation reveals bin Laden had foreknowledge of the attacks. Arabic language experts insist that the government translation is completely wrong at key points.

November 2001: The UK Office of the Prime Minister issues a report detailing past Al Qaeda activities and states that this constitutes clear evidence of their involvement in 9/11. No new evidence is actually brought forward.

February 6, 2002: The FBI states that the evidence linking bin Laden to the attacks is "clear and irrefutable." No evidence is brought forward.

October 29, 2004: A videotape is released in which Osama bin Laden claims full responsibility for the 9/11 attacks for the first time, over 3 years later. The tape is released 4 days before the presidential election and a poll taken after its airing shows a significant increase in President Bush's popularity over Senator Kerry, giving him a 6 point lead in the election. Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin even states, "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President."


So here's the progression:

+ The Bush administration plans an attack on Afghanistan for at least 6 months, but doesn't carry it out.
+ The Bush administration pins responsibility for 9/11 on Osama bin Laden without revealing any evidence or confession.
+ The Bush administration justifies an attack on Afghanistan with the logic that they're harboring bin Laden.
+ The Bush administration gets reelected by the conveniently timed confession of Osama bin Laden 3 years later.

All of this by an administration proven to use propaganda and manipulation of intelligence to justify an attack on Iraq.

Things that make you go, "Hmm...."

Awesome reply :thumbsup: -reps

I'll be curious to see "what pops up" in the next year to justify an increase of operations for Mr. Obama....

 

[Red Spyder]

I'm no military expert, but common sense tells me that the invasion of Iraq stopped Jihadi's from the Middle East to flock to Afghanistan. In other words, it may have just stopped any reinforcements for Osama bin Laden from that area. If I'm a Saudi Jihadi, why go all the way to Afghanistan when I can go right next door to Iraq and (try to) kill invading American infidels? Where most likely that Saudi would either be killed or captured therefore one less terrorist or supporter and if someone else takes his place, we got more bullets where that one came from. After all, we can't invade Saudi Arabia, they're our "friends".

Secondly, the fall of Hussein then was one less potential source of money and weapons for the Afghan Jihadis. Then again, they still have Iran just that Iran hasn't really given the U.S. a reason to invade (yet) since when was the last time that Iran used WMD's or invaded a neighboring country? Iraq did both in the 80's and 90's. But that's just my :2 cents:

 

[georges]

the safety of the us soil was one of Bush's priorities. During the Clinton administration during three attacks: 1st WTC bombing in 1993, bombing of the American embassy in Kenya in 1997 and bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, the terrorists weren't caught at time. The forces that were sent to Somalia in Mogadisciu had to withdraw because they were outnumbered by the rebels. Let's see what Obama will do.

 

[General Warcock]

As Jessie Ventura says, "face it people all you've got to choose from are coke and pepsi. One might be sweeter than the other, but that's all you've got".

The government and wealthy entrepreneurs buy up all the land, forcing you into the cities to work. Then they make things so expensive you have to take out loans that you spend your life trying to pay back. Their fun playing dice with your blood and sweat on Wall St. doesn't pan out, and now your house is taken, your car, you''re now on the street with no healthcare, and nowhere to turn, and yet people still bow down to their masters. This is nothing but an oligarchy. You have the illusion of choice. Whoever the media and the corporations want to get elected will get elected.

 

[Facetious]

Agreed. *Don't forget the plethora of government satellite attorneys, as well as the the pseudo environmental lobbyists, etc., who are constantly working to reinvent how we should live our lives, simply so that they can stay ahead of the fray and make a disproportional abundance of wealth for themselves.

Sidebar about "the forcing into cities"- I'm certain that it's going on everywhere - I have noticed a trend with the groundbreaking of big, high density, high rise housing projects in the downtown areas of major cities throughout the state of Kalifornia. Some of these buildings are 18 to approximately 20 floors large ! Who in the hell would want to live in a government mandated 20 story building ?

The way I look at it is - every man has a garage full of tools, a large workbench, something to work on or improve, a small reefer full of beer & soda pop and an "old lady" e.g. a girlfriend and / or wife *or both* :tongue: to occasionally poke their heads out of the door yelling for you to come in to help her with something. :hatsoff:

How do the powers that be expect to force men into living conditions such as high rise housing ? It ain't me ! It ain't me !! nor my friends either !

Then they make things so expensive you have to take out loans that you spend your life trying to pay back.

Agreed. The confiscatory - like tax schedule almost makes home ownership a lost cause for the non attorney, non business - know all angles, smart ass, these days. It's all by design, I'm 'fraid.

Their fun playing dice with your blood and sweat on Wall St. doesn't pan out, and now your house is taken, your car, you''re now on the street

All of this, I would appraise, is by design as well. My reasoning why I believe this will be issued upon special request :rofl2:

with no healthcare,

Contrary to popular modern think, healthcare is not a right granted in the U.S. Constitution. Look at it this way - When and if mandatory government healthcare becomes law, THE GOVERNMENT OWNS YOU ! Doesn't that make you feel like a feckless mini - dick ? Why would anybody wish to subscribe to an already rashioned healthcare, ummm, "s y s t e m" ? Why would a government that would eventually owe you a social security check, that's running on borrowed time and money, wish to preserve your life ? Example - The government not only would become the domineers of the healthcare that you would receive, they'd become the arbitors of the healthcare that you DON'T receive. YOU just might be the expendable one in a govt. healthcare dictatorship. The scary thing about govt mandated healthcare is supply. You couldn't even sub contract your own personal physician, even if you had to sell your home to save you own life, (unless you had special govt privilege) as it would be illegal for you to get involved with such a contract.

This is nothing but an oligarchy.

Yep ! :yesyes:

You have the illusion of choice.

To the contrary. Whoever the media and the corporations want to get elected will get elected.[/QUOTE] don't forget the attorney lobby - always looking out for their best vested interests.

 

[freeryan]

Payback or not invading any country will continue fights. That the logic of street gangs and they're still around and still cause death. Some talked it out like Obama, being criticized for doing, and atleast made a difference. Bush was an idiot but Presidents do what they think their "Fellow Americans" will applaud them for and nobody is forcing the soldiers to go over seas and kill. You can leave and go to a peaceful country. If I were told to go or face jail I'd leave this stolen land and enjoy some Jamaican paradise.

 

[skechers]

Afghanistan should have been the focal point for the Bush regime from the start. Not just a stepping stone into Iraq.

 

[Facial_King]

I doubt that troops in Afghanistan are going to help to fight terror.

So, I'm going to say what Obama is doing isn't so great.

We should avoid double standards, it's true.