GOP Media Strategist Says Republicans Would Choose Killing Obamacare Over Killing Osama Bin Laden
72 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ridge;33636423]Because alienating your customers is the best way to keep a company profitable.
[editline]8th December 2011[/editline]
Whoa whoa....which Roosevelt?[/QUOTE]
Does it matter?
Both were pretty good presidents.
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;33636444]Does it matter?
Both were pretty good presidents.[/QUOTE]
Well duh, FDR was a warmonger who staged the 12/7 attacks so he could go to war with Japan for their silk.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33636387]I didn't say I agree, I'm pretty neutral on that point. I'm just stating the facts. You really should learn both sides of the argument before you go blindly defending one side.[/QUOTE]
yeah most republicans are in a tax bracket that rarely gets cuts anyway
[QUOTE=Ridge;33636483]Well duh, FDR was a warmonger who staged the 12/7 attacks so he could go to war with Japan for their silk.[/QUOTE]
that's a pretty good joke
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;33635849]We just need more than 2 damned parties and to educate this dumb ass country
Speaking of that first matter BRING BACK THE WHIGS[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have just the Democrats over keeping the Republicans around.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;33636930]I'd have one party under the Democrats than keep the Republicans around.[/QUOTE]
........what?
Why wouldn't they? One is a man halfway across the earth who had evaded US soldiers for years. The other is something they perceive as a fundamental evil out to destroy their lives, on their own soil.
This is mostly liberal circle jerking. Try looking through the eyes of your opposition, for a moment. You might actually gain some insight into why they think and do the things they do.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;33636930]I'd have one party under the Democrats than keep the Republicans around.[/QUOTE]
now this is actual worst itn post 2011
[QUOTE=OrionChronicles;33635642]GOP qualifies as an evil cult of personality. Its time for some political rearrangements in Washington.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly ignorant statement to make. Neither Republicans or Democrats are evil, they're both doing what they think is right for the country.
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33636995]I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly ignorant statement to make. Neither Republicans or Democrats are evil, they're both doing what they think is right for the country.[/QUOTE]
nooooo
[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;33636995]I'm sorry, but that's an incredibly ignorant statement to make. Neither Republicans or Democrats are evil, they're both doing what they think is right for the country.[/QUOTE]
They both seem to be running it directly into a steel plated brick wall.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33636975]Why wouldn't they? One is a man halfway across the earth who had evaded US soldiers for years. The other is something they perceive as a fundamental evil out to destroy their lives, on their own soil.
This is mostly liberal circle jerking. Try looking through the eyes of your opposition, for a moment. You might actually gain some insight into why they think and do the things they do.[/QUOTE]Although I do agree with looking at both sides, the scenario does not seem to be phrased as "Do you want to go after this or that" so much as "This or that can be immediately ended right now. Choose one."
And to choose the political shenanigan over the (theoretically) active and able mass murderer who vows to strike again if given the chance... [i]man[/i]...
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;33637038]nooooo[/QUOTE]
Not the politicians necessarily, but the people do. Many Republicans are just as impoverished as Democrats, they just have a different philosophy on what is best for them, and society as a whole. Either you want to try and label all republicans and conservatives as completely heartless beings lacking compassion -in which case I would point to most of my family as an example of the opposite-, or your argument that they don't have the best interests of the country at heart falls apart.
[QUOTE=Pennywise;33637061]Although I do agree with looking at both sides, the scenario does not seem to be phrased as "Do you want to go after this or that" so much as "This or that can be immediately ended right now. Choose one."
And to choose the political shenanigan over the (theoretically) active and able mass murderer who vows to strike again if given the chance... [I]man[/I]...[/QUOTE]
Again, would you kill a mass murderer who could kill thousands? Or would you stop a program you think will destroy the entire country and damn the 300 million people living in it? This is a philosophical question and can't be answered yes or no in any objective fashion, but I do ask that you try and understand why someone would pick the latter versus the former.
[QUOTE=Ridge;33635198]Hey guys, I'm a Democrat strategist. It is our plan to make all guns illegal and all abortions mandatory.[/QUOTE]
you know I haven't actually heard that
thanks for informing me of what these godless democrats will do if they ever get complete control
[QUOTE=Ridge;33635198]
The centerpiece of the WoT has been Afghanistan, which has neither.[/QUOTE]
then you shouldn't be there
at least with Iraq you're getting energy security
[QUOTE=Contag;33637248]then you shouldn't be there
at least with Iraq you're getting energy security[/QUOTE]
We went there because that country was the host for al Qaeda and bin Laden. No longer an issue. Clearly we should move to Pakistan and sort them out.
And we aren't getting any energy subsidies or products from Iraq. Those are going to European countries.
really ridge for what reason do you support the Afghan conflict?
the northern alliance and the taliban are two sides of the coin
[QUOTE=Contag;33637275]really ridge for what reason do you support the Afghan conflict?
the northern alliance and the taliban are two sides of the coin[/QUOTE]
I supported it when the goal was to get bin Laden and take out the terrorist network residing there. That has since left Afghanistan and is now based in Pakistan.
[QUOTE=Ridge;33637262]We went there because that country was the host for al Qaeda and bin Laden. No longer an issue. Clearly we should move to Pakistan and sort them out.
And we aren't getting any energy subsidies or products from Iraq. Those are going to European countries.[/QUOTE]
Right so obviously you forgot that the taliban offered to root out al qaeda, considering they fucking hate each other
Yes, because energy security means profiting off oil. intelligent posting there ridge
[QUOTE=Contag;33637283]Right so obviously you forgot that the taliban offered to root out al qaeda, considering they fucking hate each other
Yes, because energy security means profiting off oil. intelligent posting there ridge[/QUOTE]
Then please educate me, rather than insulting me.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33637147]Either you want to try and label all republicans and conservatives as completely heartless beings lacking compassion -in which case I would point to most of my family as an example of the opposite-, or your argument that they don't have the best interests of the country at heart falls apart.[/QUOTE]
But conservatism, or libertarianism at least, by definition is the rejection of compassion for pure self-reliance.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33637300]But conservatism, or libertarianism at least, by definition is the rejection of compassion for pure self-reliance.[/QUOTE]
No it isn't. It's the rejection "babying", and the state "babying" people. They believe that a truly fulfilled life comes from self-reliance and community reliance(depending on the brand of conservatism or libertarianism), and they want everyone to experience that fulfillment. Wouldn't that be compassionate, in it's own way?
[QUOTE=Ridge;33637290]Then please educate me, rather than insulting me.[/QUOTE]
Okay then. Most of the Al Qaeda Afghan bases were about 50-75km from Pakistan, so it wasn't a significant move and didn't justify the massive expense that Afghanistan entailed.
There were some pretty significant tensions between the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. During the 90s al-qaeda supported the taliban through a seperate guerrilla force (055 brigade), and instead of rewrite the whole thing I'm just going to quote pages of text (but fortunately they're interesting pages).
[quote]President Barack Obama insists that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is about “making sure that al Qaeda cannot attack the U.S. homeland and U.S. interests and our allies” or “project violence against” American citizens. The reasoning is that if the Taliban win in Afghanistan, al Qaeda will once again be able to set up shop there to carry out its dirty work. As the president puts it, Afghanistan would “again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can.” This argument is constantly repeated but rarely examined; given the costs and risks associated with the Obama administration’s plans for the region, it is time such statements be given the scrutiny they deserve.
[B]Multiple sources, including Lawrence Wright’s book The Looming Tower, make clear that the Taliban was a reluctant host to al Qaeda in the 1990s and felt betrayed when the terrorist group repeatedly violated agreements to refrain from issuing inflammatory statements and fomenting violence abroad[/B]. Then the al Qaeda-sponsored 9/11 attacks — which the Taliban had nothing to do with — led to the toppling of the Taliban’s regime. Given the Taliban’s limited interest in issues outside the “AfPak” region, if they came to power again now, they would be highly unlikely to host provocative terrorist groups whose actions could lead to another outside intervention. And [B]even if al Qaeda were able to relocate to Afghanistan after a Taliban victory there, it would still have to operate under the same siege situation it presently enjoys in what Obama calls its “safe haven” in Pakistan.
[/B]
The very notion that al Qaeda needs a secure geographic base to carry out its terrorist operations, moreover, is questionable. After all, the operational base for 9/11 was in Hamburg, Germany. Conspiracies involving small numbers of people require communication, money, and planning — but not a major protected base cam[/quote]
[quote] In addition to Lawrence Wright, Steve Coll makes the same argument in The Bin Ladens: namely, [B] that the Taliban and al-Qaeda were not natural allies, willing to support each primarily out of a religious or ideological affinity.On the contrary, Osama bin Laden had to lavish enormous amounts of money on Taliban leaders in order to stay in their good graces. In addition to other tributes, Osama employed his construction know-how to build palaces, homes and other facilities for Taliban leaders. Without those sweeteners, it is unlikely that the Taliban would have long tolerated what was, essentially, a band of problematic interlopers with an agenda that was irrelevant to the inwardly directed Afghans.[/B]
Now that the Taliban has been made aware of the sizable costs that they could and would incur should they decide to reprise their previous landlord/tenant relationship with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, it is less likely that they would be so inclined. And now that the US and other nations have are taking the task of disrupting al-Qaeda’s financing networks seriously (with time, money and other resources dedicated to the cause), it would be harder for Osama and others to generate the funds needed to buy their way in.[/quote]
[quote]When Al Qaeda arrived in Afghanistan from Sudan around 1996, says Kuehn, its membership was not more than 30. Al Qaeda fighters, and the growing number of recruits who came to Afghanistan from elsewhere, kept apart from Taliban fighters, who resented Al Qaeda, and there was a great deal of animosity between the two. Osama bin Laden insisted that international actions against the United States and other countries was crucial to his strategy, while Mullah Omar opposed such actions, says Kuehn.
“Osama bin Laden’s death will have zero impact on the Afghan Taliban,” says Kuehn. In part, that’s because they “didn’t have much a relationship to begin with.” Still, he says, it’s foolish to expect the Taliban to denounce Al Qaeda or to formally break with the organization, in part because bin Laden and Al Qaeda were Mullah Omar’s bridge to the Arab world. Yet when bin Laden was killed, the Taliban’s reaction was muted, and its statement—released via the Taliban’s semi-official web site—was mild and restrained. (If you haven't spent time reading the Taliban in its own words, its web site is the place to start.)
Today in Kandahar, he says, the lines between supporters of the Taliban and others, including supporters of the government, are blurred. Often, when he visits friends who are prominent Kandaharis, he’ll suddenly find himself sitting with a passel of Taliban commanders.
In response to a questioner who asked about the relationship between the Taliban and the Pashtun ethnic group in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kuehn said that the Taliban “always saw itself as nonaligned, as an Islamist movement, not a Pashtun movement.” Although many analysts conflate the Taliban and Pashtuns, Kuehn said that’s wrong. In fact, he said, “The Taliban has been making huge inroads into ethnic groups in the north,” gaining support among Uzbeks and Tajiks who resent the presence of foreign forces.
In the north, where anti-Taliban forces among the old Northern Alliance are rallying behind Afghan leaders opposed to the Taliban, there are war preparations being made for outright civil war between a reconstituted Northern Alliance and the Taliban, and in some cases commanders in the north are actually drawing lines on maps to represent where they expect the front lines might be. Even among these circles, however, Kuehn says that there are compromise-minded people who’d be willing to accept a division of power between Taliban and non-Taliban forces.
[B]Kuehn said that another division is emerging between what he called the “old guard” Taliban and the new commanders who are moving in to replace those captured or killed by the American counterinsurgency effort in the south. It is, he said, the old guard who are more susceptible to talks with the United States and its allies, including the Afghan government. “There is still a chance to engage the senior leadership of the old-generation Taliban,” he said. But the more they are replaced by younger militants, the more difficult it will be. Pakistan, too, has less influence over the new Taliban youth than it does over Mullah Omar and the Quetta Shura leadership, and the more time that passes the harder it will be for Pakistan to help deliver the Taliban to the bargaining table.[/B][/quote]
[quote]On the day of 9/11, the Taliban foreign minister told the Arab television network Al Jazeera: "We denounce this terrorist attack, whoever is behind it."
The United States requested the Taliban to shut down all al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, open them to inspection and turn over Osama bin Laden. The Taliban refused all these requests. Instead they offered to extradite Osama bin Laden to an Islamic country, for trial under Islamic law, if the United States presented evidence of his guilt.[/quote]
Hell the only reason that Osama wasn't extradited in the late 90s by the Taliban was because Clinton authorized cruise missile strikes into Afghan territory which pissed them off.
Of course, that's not talked about much because Clinton was a democrat.
[editline]9th December 2011[/editline]
And the point about Iraq is that the West has secured the significant amounts of oil there with a pro-west government, so that something like in 1973 isn't as likely to happen considering how vital oil is to society
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33637369]No it isn't. It's the rejection "babying", and the state "babying" people. They believe that a truly fulfilled life comes from self-reliance and community reliance(depending on the brand of conservatism or libertarianism), and they want everyone to experience that fulfillment. Wouldn't that be compassionate, in it's own way?[/QUOTE]
It can't be compassionate because their philosophy leads to a compassionless society and I'm sure they know it
It's just that they got theirs so fuck everyone else
[QUOTE=Zeke129;33637552]It can't be compassionate because their philosophy leads to a compassionless society and I'm sure they know it
It's just that they got theirs so fuck everyone else[/QUOTE]
Is there an example of a true libertarian society out there?
Two things. Firstly, my only objection to state-funded healthcare for all Americans is funding. We can't even pay our current bills, where the goddamn fuck are we gonna find the money for a national healthcare system? Solve that and I'm onboard, free state-funded healthcare would benefit me tremendously because I'm in the not-so-unique position of "can't afford out-of-pocket, don't have insurance", but until it can be paid for without raising taxes then hold off on it.
Secondly, this is why I fucking hate partisan politics. It does the public no good, all it does is facilitate one side bitching, whining and bickering at and about the other. We would be better off with no political parties at all.
[QUOTE=TestECull;33637602]Two things. Firstly, my only objection to state-funded healthcare for all Americans is funding. We can't even pay our current bills, where the goddamn fuck are we gonna find the money for a national healthcare system? Solve that and I'm onboard, free state-funded healthcare would benefit me tremendously because I'm in the not-so-unique position of "can't afford out-of-pocket, don't have insurance", but until it can be paid for without raising taxes then hold off on it.
Secondly, this is why I fucking hate partisan politics. It does the public no good, all it does is facilitate one side bitching, whining and bickering at and about the other. We would be better off with no political parties at all.[/QUOTE]
because its paid via taxes just like all the other healcare programs in canada and the uk.
[QUOTE=jordguitar;33637740]because its paid via taxes just like all the other healcare programs in canada and the uk.[/QUOTE]
What i think he's saying is... fix our spending issues, get rid of useless shit and then once we have all that under control and happy, THEN think about nationalized healthcare.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;33637875]What i think he's saying is... fix our spending issues, get rid of useless shit and then once we have all that under control and happy, THEN think about nationalized healthcare.[/QUOTE]
Unless you are willing to roll back things that are already in place which will instantly fuck over millions then fine, watch as more people get pissed off.
[QUOTE=Thyroxin;33637039]They both seem to be running it directly into a steel plated brick wall.[/QUOTE]
That's a matter of incompetence, not malice.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.