# Obama's prloblem....



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

.....or at least one of them. An interesting article.

I don't know about the rest of you, but it sure does not settle well with me that my U.S. Senator is thought of so fondly by state sponsors of terrorism.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

pt4u67 said:


> .....or at least one of them. An interesting article.
> 
> I don't know about the rest of you, but it sure does not settle well with me that my U.S. Senator is thought of so fondly by state sponsors of terrorism.


Would you really let the opinion of Syrians weigh on your behavior in the voting booth?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Why do you think the Syrians have such regard for him and not John McCain? What in Obama's rhetoric would lead them to believe that?

Also, how do you think an Obama presidency would look to the Syrians vis a vis American foreign policy and how would that influence their behavior? Ask yourself those questions and the stakes of this election become apparent.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> .....or at least one of them. An interesting article.
> 
> I don't know about the rest of you, but it sure does not settle well with me that my U.S. Senator is thought of so fondly by state sponsors of terrorism.


Does it bother you that your President is thought of so fondly by the Saudis?


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Yea really, ask OBL his opinion about President Bush and I'd wager you'd get a glowing endorsement. 

I was reading an interview with a Palestinian militant some time ago who remarked that he didn't have any issue with the American people, but he did with American policy.

Which would beg the question, is there really a one size fits all approach to the issue of terrorisim?

Seems like there are a number of motives, reasons, root causes etc.. out there.

-spence


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Spence said:


> Yea really, ask OBL his opinion about President Bush and I'd wager you'd get a glowing endorsement.
> 
> -spence


I know that sounds like a snappy come back, but, no, OBL would not endorse Bush.

And if you want to bring up the subject of OBL's endorsement, like it or not, OBL would most certainly endorse Obama over McCain.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Obama can't type? Damn, I hate that! :devil:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This is a little funny on two levels. First, electing Obama is not going to get the US love in the Muslim world. Until the SCOTUS is using Sharia law to make decisions, that dog just is not going to hunt. Second, when a country that is no fan of the US says they like a certain US politician, what do you think that motivation is? The good of the US? If you think that is the motivation, I have a nice piece of Arizona beach front property to sell you in Yuma.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> Yea really, ask OBL his opinion about President Bush and I'd wager you'd get a glowing endorsement.
> 
> I was reading an interview with a Palestinian militant some time ago who remarked that he didn't have any issue with the American people, but he did with American policy.
> 
> ...


Why of course! Change American policy and the militants will disarm. People are always saying that around the world. I guess it is hard for someone living in the third world under a sort of tribal quasi-dictatorship to grasp the notion that in a democracy people have a say in the formation of policy. One cannot have his cake and eat it too.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Let me see ... If I'm OBL, my choices are the guy that said he would hunt me down even if it meant chasing me to the gates of hell or some other guy. That's a tough choice ... I usually don't like an unknown, but maybe I'll give Option B a chance. :devil:


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Relayer said:


> I know that sounds like a snappy come back, but, no, OBL would not endorse Bush.


No, not politically, but don't you think that deep down inside OBL is secretly thanking GWB for behaving in the exact manner he predicted?

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Why of course! Change American policy and the militants will disarm. People are always saying that around the world. I guess it is hard for someone living in the third world under a sort of tribal quasi-dictatorship to grasp the notion that in a democracy people have a say in the formation of policy. One cannot have his cake and eat it too.


I never said that. Why is it that any introspection is instantly looked upon as weakness?

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Spence said:


> No, not politically, but don't you think that deep down inside OBL is secretly thanking GWB for behaving in the exact manner he predicted?
> 
> -spence


Well, I think that depends on whether you have ever lived in a cave or not. If it was me? No. I would not be secretly thanking 'W'. It hasn't worked out too well for OBL or Saddam. I guess on some level you can say "gee that Saddam he really tricked us!" In fact, by all reports Saddam was saying that right up until the hanging. I'm unclear on all the benefits you see flowing to OBL, but on a cost-benefit basis I think OBL got the short end of the stick.

I also think neither OBL or Saddam (and we know Saddam admitted to it) believed 'W' would remove the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq by force. From our perspective we see it was obvious, but they didn't. I find it hard to consider them out-smartting us when they couldn't predict that America would behave exactly in the manner we did. OBL might be saying that in hindsight, but so what? His contemporaneous actions don't support that conclusion.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Bin Laden--I would think he's pretty glad that Bush decided to take the people who were chasing him out of Afghanistan and send them to a country that never posed any threat to us.
Hussein--no, he didn't trick us. What he did do was tell the truth to us and the United Nations.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Bin Laden--I would think he's pretty glad that Bush decided to take the people who were chasing him out of Afghanistan and send them to a country that never posed any threat to us.
> Hussein--no, he didn't trick us. What he did do was tell the truth to us and the United Nations.


Would you do me a favor? Would you call the Wife of my buddy that has three little girls and is in Afghanistan for the 4th time and tell her that? Thanks!

Jack, Husseins' own generals thought he still had WMD because that's what he told them. He lied to everybody. You're living in a false reality if you think Saddam was telling the truth. He was required by the UN to PROVE he had disarmed and he did not, because he wanted to keep the perception alive that he still had them. This is a known fact and your DU-talking point won't change it.

It seems to me there are so many legitimate gripes with the Bush Administration to have, why make stuff up?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> It seems to me there are so many legitimate gripes with the Bush Administration to have, why make stuff up?


QFT.

And the answer is, because people like Jack cannot be content to point out legit gripes in a non-personal manner. They must create a frenzy to cause personal animus of the political opponent in question, therefore a complete and monolithic demonization must occur. To criticize an actual human in a balanced fashion will not suffice. A 100% evil/wrong monster must be established for the whole effort to work.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I guess on some level you can say "gee that Saddam he really tricked us!" In fact, by all reports Saddam was saying that right up until the hanging. I'm unclear on all the benefits you see flowing to OBL, but on a cost-benefit basis I think OBL got the short end of the stick.


How so? He's probably alive and well protected in Pakistan where they appear to be training terrorists today. Iraq has given OBL the marketing energy to radicalize more moderates into a dispersed global insurgency.

Not sure what Saddam has to do with all of this.

-spence


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> What he did do was tell the truth to us and the United Nations.


I think it would be more accurate to say Saddam that obfuscated the truth.

-spence


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Spence said:


> No, not politically, but don't you think that deep down inside OBL is secretly thanking GWB for behaving in the exact manner he predicted?
> -spence


No, I really don't. But I really do believe that he will rejoice if (and I think it probably will happen) Obama is elected President.

I think there is a lot of truth to the recent reports that claim al Qaeda's "best" days are behind it. (Obama's ascension may have a big impact on that).


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Does it bother you that your President is thought of so fondly by the Saudis?


Zing! :icon_smile_big:

He's also got that pesky "terrorist fist jab" problem. 

I really don't care too much for obama, or hilary, or anyone else in either party, but these tactics are pretty transparent, even to someone like me who doesnt really follow politics that much. The republicans should just come out and accuse him of being a terrorist sympathizer instead of dancing around it with half-baked innuendo.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Relayer said:


> No, I really don't. But I really do believe that he will rejoice if (and I think it probably will happen) Obama is elected President.
> 
> I think there is a lot of truth to the recent reports that claim al Qaeda's "best" days are behind it. (Obama's ascension may have a big impact on that).


Why would he rejoice?

From what I gather al Qaeda is hurting but the terrorist threat is shifting and not necessarily diminished. This may make OBL's vision of a true Islamic state (situated about where Saudia Arabia is today) less likely, but it would mean that our strategy may need to adapt as well.

I guess a key question would be, how are our efforts to reform the Middle East going?

-spence


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Would you do me a favor? Would you call the Wife of my buddy that has three little girls and is in Afghanistan for the 4th time and tell her that? Thanks!
> 
> Jack, Husseins' own generals thought he still had WMD because that's what he told them. He lied to everybody. You're living in a false reality if you think Saddam was telling the truth. He was required by the UN to PROVE he had disarmed and he did not, because he wanted to keep the perception alive that he still had them. This is a known fact and your DU-talking point won't change it.
> 
> It seems to me there are so many legitimate gripes with the Bush Administration to have, why make stuff up?


I don't quite get what you're saying about Afghanistan. I agreed with the decision to go in there, although we obviously should have done a better job of it.

With regard to Hussein and his report to the UN, I'll just stick with the facts: what he reported was the truth, whether you like the facts or not.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Spence said:


> I never said that. Why is it that any introspection is instantly looked upon as weakness?
> 
> -spence


Spence, 
Nothing wrong with introspection, however the kind you propose has failed over and over again throughout history. Any introspection and self criticism needs to be rooted in reality and not an ideal that has never been achieved.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Spence,
> Nothing wrong with introspection, however the kind you propose has failed over and over again throughout history. Any introspection and self criticism needs to be rooted in reality and not an ideal that has never been achieved.


"In reality" as in there is only one?

People who put their faith in external reality often don't spend much time on introspection. What would be the point examining a tiny interior space when the wide, wide world awaits? Many men of action work to remake the world into an image that they find better and pride themselves on a kind of stoicism that also resolutely refuses to look inward. Why change your mind when you can try to change the world to suit it?

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> Spence,
> Nothing wrong with introspection, however the kind you propose has failed over and over again throughout history. Any introspection and self criticism needs to be rooted in reality and not an ideal that has never been achieved.


I wasn't aware that I had explicitly proposed any particular flavor of introspection.

The point being, even if we have only an indirect or loosely associated role in a factor that exacerbates terrorisim, we should be mindful of that fact. It may indeed be prudent to modify our behavior, or perhaps there's a net gain and we shouldn't.

Post 9/11 most public attempts I've seen to understand the issue have been blasted as anti-American, and perhaps some on the fringe left have been. But the what seems to be driving our policy is an equally fringe right view that we were attacked by lunatics simply hell bent on destroying the American way of life...no further discussion required.

This to me at least doesn't appear to be a very reasonable assessment of motive. And if you can't get a bearing on that how can you work towards addressing the issue?

-spence


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't quite get what you're saying about Afghanistan. I agreed with the decision to go in there, although we obviously should have done a better job of it.
> 
> With regard to Hussein and his report to the UN, I'll just stick with the facts: what he reported was the truth, whether you like the facts or not.


You were implying that there were no troops in Afghanistan because they were sent to Iraq and that it pleased OBL. IIRC OBL fled Afghanistan.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I wouldn't say or imply any such thing. What I was saying, although apparently not clearly enough, is that Bush pulled a large (I think it was about 40,000) force out of the Tora Bora Mountains, where they were searching for bin Laden, and sent them to Iraq. It's hard to paint that as a smart move. (Whic, I recognize, you didn't try to do.)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Bin Laden--I would think he's pretty glad that Bush decided to take the people who were chasing him out of Afghanistan and send them to a country that never posed any threat to us.
> Hussein--no, he didn't trick us. What he did do was tell the truth to us and the United Nations.





ksinc said:


> You were implying that there were no troops in Afghanistan because they were sent to Iraq and that it pleased OBL. IIRC OBL fled Afghanistan.





jackmccullough said:


> I wouldn't say or imply any such thing. What I was saying, although apparently not clearly enough, is that Bush pulled a large (I think it was about 40,000) force out of the Tora Bora Mountains, where they were searching for bin Laden, and sent them to Iraq. It's hard to paint that as a smart move. (Whic, I recognize, you didn't try to do.)


Ok.

When you said "Bin Laden" ... "pretty glad" ... "the people chasing him out of Afghanistan" it reads differently.

Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> Why do you think the Syrians have such regard for him and not John McCain? What in Obama's rhetoric would lead them to believe that?



He's not white. Not that it's a bad thing to be white, but many in the East would like it if a power as major as we are were to elect a minority.
People have found his rhetoric is inspiring. I know a lot of folks mock the idea of being inspired by Senator Obama, but the fact remains that many are and that is international.
Obama is the favored US candidate in just about every country abroad - including 'staunch allies' in Europe. 
People are sick of the Bush years.
Not all Syrians are terrorists.



Wayfarer said:


> This is a little funny on two levels. First, electing Obama is not going to get the US love in the Muslim world. Until the SCOTUS is using Sharia law to make decisions, that dog just is not going to hunt. Second, when a country that is no fan of the US says they like a certain US politician, what do you think that motivation is? The good of the US? If you think that is the motivation, I have a nice piece of Arizona beach front property to sell you in Yuma.


Actually, yes. As a Muslim who has lived in the Muslim world, I can tell you that dislike for America is mainly a dislike for American policies. The idea of America - a country where everyone has opportunities and everyone is an immigrant - is held quite highly. Senator Obama is seen by many as an example of that. People like him - it's not some bizarre conspiracy to bring down the US.
I'm basing my statements on working with people at the grassroots level in these countries, not on the well-traveled and privileged elite.

Additionally, the contention that the vast majority, or even a large share, of the Muslim world is clamoring for the United States to operate on Islamic law is false.

In any case, I'm still clamoring for an socially progressive, economically conservative candidate. No one seems to be filling that niche


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

JibranK said:


> In any case, I'm still clamoring for an socially progressive, economically conservative candidate. No one seems to be filling that niche


I think we'll be waiting for some time. What I do like about McCain is that I doubt he's going to champion many social issues.

-spence


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

JibranK said:


> Additionally, the contention that the vast majority, or even a large share, of the Muslim world is clamoring for the United States to operate on Islamic law is false.


I base this on Sharia law either being established in other countries, i.e. the Philippines, or having it seriously proposed and examined in other countries, i.e. Canada, the UK. Islam is most certainly about spreading Islam. That is neither good nor bad, it just is. At one time, Christians were all about that too (see: Crusades)



JibranK said:


> In any case, I'm still clamoring for an socially progressive, economically conservative candidate. No one seems to be filling that niche


I am awaiting that too. No one seems to be forthcoming though.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was in my senior HS year in a 'gifted student' History seminar. My teacher decided I was conservative based on knowing the order of battle at Hastings. We had this rather clumsy game of leadership with small groups assigned hypothetic countries. In his predictable way, I was made president of a weak democracy in a largely poor third world nation with a minimal defense force. The wannabee hippies all got the equivelent to the USA and USSR. I ditched class on Wednesday after two days of futile negotiations to get wheat for my people. I rendevoued with this girl named Rose at the Foster's Freeze and a afternoon in the local cemetary. I returned Thursday to find the black kid had launched a thermonuclear first strike against the campus pot dealer and wiped everybody out. Ah, but everybody thought he was cool, talking about the Peace Corps and his vast collection of MOTOWN 45RPMs. IS anybody watching and listening? The Democrats are looking for a potential VP with a MILITARY BACKGROUND. They got themselves a Dark Horse candidate and are looking for a wheeler to keep the state carriage from being nailed by a roadside bomb.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> ... IS anybody watching and listening? The Democrats are looking for a potential VP with a MILITARY BACKGROUND. They got themselves a Dark Horse candidate and are looking for a wheeler to keep the state carriage from being nailed by a roadside bomb.


Of course few are listening. Eisenhower, of all people, warned about the military-industrial complex and how it was on the rise and out to control the country. Mattered not which party was occupying the White House. That was half a century ago. Imagine all the progress since.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Quay said:


> Of course few are listening. Eisenhower, of all people, warned about the military-industrial complex and how it was on the rise and out to control the country. Mattered not which party was occupying the White House. That was half a century ago. Imagine all the progress since.
> 
> Cordially,
> A.Q.


And now we get to live in a police state.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JibranK said:


> He's not white. Not that it's a bad thing to be white, but many in the East would like it if a power as major as we are were to elect a minority.
> People have found his rhetoric is inspiring. I know a lot of folks mock the idea of being inspired by Senator Obama, but the fact remains that many are and that is international.
> Obama is the favored US candidate in just about every country abroad - including 'staunch allies' in Europe.
> People are sick of the Bush years.
> Not all Syrians are terrorists.


1) That makes no sense what so ever! That he is a minority he will be more forgiving of state sponsors of terrorism. Shouldn't the Syrians and the rest of the "Arab street" be more concerned with their governments (i.e. dictators) than the color of the U.S. President.

2) What about his rhetoric should inspire the Arabs? Again this goes to my original point; whether correctly or incorrectly, is the middle east taking signals from Obama's rhetoric that, if elected, he would be more forgiving of them and willing to throw Israel under the bus.

3) The rest of the world doesn't get to vote in the U.S. elections. Remember Kerry idiotic comment about speaking with many "foreign leaders" who wanted him instead of Bush.

4) That's fine. Come Jan. 21st, 2009 Bush will be out. What does that have to do with the current race?

5) Perhaps not but how do we know? The Syrian people, government not included, don't exactly have a free voice in the society. It would appear on the surface that they are willing to put up with their current dictator therefore I would have to take that as tacit approval. When Syrians and the rest of the Arabs start openly denouncing the anti-semitic, anti-western rhetoric coming from their media and government perhaps I will start coming around to your point of view.


----------



## omairp (Aug 21, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> 5) Perhaps not but how do we know? The Syrian people, government not included, don't exactly have a free voice in the society. It would appear on the surface that they are willing to put up with their current dictator therefore I would have to take that as tacit approval. When Syrians and the rest of the Arabs start openly denouncing the anti-semitic, anti-western rhetoric coming from their media and government perhaps I will start coming around to your point of view.


LOL. Visit for yourself and then decide.


----------

