Another scenario on dealing with Iran. Farfetched? You decide.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 2:13 AM GMT
    I have the opinion that Obama will do whatever he can to get reelected. I know others disagree that he is so self-centered. But suppose what helps him get reelected is also considered good policy by many?

    The major Republican candidates have stated Obama is weak on the mid-east and under his watch, Iran will get the bomb. Just today Obama toughened his language, stating he does not bluff.

    SUPPOSE:

    Obama and his reelection team decided the sanctions would not work and that Israel would go it alone, probably before the election. Regardless of Israel's degree of success, Obama would not look too good.

    Obama and his team are working closely with Israel on a combined campaign. There have been many high level visits recently and the story that the US is pressuring Israel to wait is just a cover.

    The US and Israel will deploy no ground forces. Not necessary. Goal is not to control land or expel forces but to cripple the nuclear capability. They decide to go further and cripple Iran's military including its entire command and control structure, including government offices in Tehran. Maybe even the residences of top officials.

    Can't be done? Iran gloating at the one drone they captured?

    Consider this - Several years ago, cruise missiles fired from ships in the Mediterranean carried topo maps of Bagdad, flew at tree-top level and hit specific buildings. Think the technology has improved even over that? Think our electronic countermeasures can disable Iranian air defenses?

    Could an attack consist of a few bombers with bunker busting munitions for the nuclear sites augmented by hundreds of cruise missiles?

    Would we be justified in attacking Iran? Their weapons have been used to kill US military in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. Probably a formal declaration of war would be difficult due to secrecy, but consultation and bipartisan agreement among the congressional leaders might be achieved.

    Impossible? Improbable?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 2:21 AM GMT
    Israel and the right-wing in the US have been fear-mongering that Iran will get the bomb for over 30 years. It's no more likely now than it was then.

    If you think Obama is weak on the MIddle East, ask Osama bin Laden, or Qadafi how weak he is. Maybe ask the various Iranian scientists who have been assassinated by American drone strikes during Obama's tenure (which I do not agree with).

    And I believe even Netanyahu referred to him as the greatest friend Israel has ever had.

    The Republicans can't run on an improving economy and Romney has lost his only rationale for being the nominee (his "inevitability"), so - sure - let's pretend Iran is going to nuke us or Israel. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 2:28 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidIsrael and the right-wing in the US have been fear-mongering that Iran will get the bomb for over 30 years. It's no more likely now than it was then.

    If you think Obama is weak on the MIddle East, ask Osama bin Laden, or Qadafi how weak he is. Maybe ask the various Iranian scientists who have been assassinated by American drone strikes during Obama's tenure (which I do not agree with).

    And I believe even Netanyahu referred to him as the greatest friend Israel has ever had.

    The Republicans can't run on an improving economy and Romney has lost his only rationale for being the nominee (his "inevitability"), so - sure - let's pretend Iran is going to nuke us or Israel. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Let's not get off on a tangent. BTW - He agreed to bin Laden mission, which a great percentage of people said was a no-brainer (49% each way, probably along party lines). As far as Qadafi, we led from behind, and it was motivated by the Europeans. The NATO command structure without US leadership was weak, and Obama waffled for weeks before allowing the US to take more of a role. Weak.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 2:37 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidI have the opinion that Obama will do whatever he can to get reelected. I know others disagree that he is so self-centered. But suppose what helps him get reelected is also considered good policy by many?

    The major Republican candidates have stated Obama is weak on the mid-east and under his watch, Iran will get the bomb. Just today Obama toughened his language, stating he does not bluff.

    SUPPOSE:

    Obama and his reelection team decided the sanctions would not work and that Israel would go it alone, probably before the election. Regardless of Israel's degree of success, Obama would not look too good.

    Obama and his team are working closely with Israel on a combined campaign. There have been many high level visits recently and the story that the US is pressuring Israel to wait is just a cover.

    The US and Israel will deploy no ground forces. Not necessary. Goal is not to control land or expel forces but to cripple the nuclear capability. They decide to go further and cripple Iran's military including its entire command and control structure, including government offices in Tehran. Maybe even the residences of top officials.

    Can't be done? Iran gloating at the one drone they captured?

    Consider this - Several years ago, cruise missiles fired from ships in the Mediterranean carried topo maps of Bagdad, flew at tree-top level and hit specific buildings. Think the technology has improved even over that? Think our electronic countermeasures can disable Iranian air defenses?

    Could an attack consist of a few bombers with bunker busting munitions for the nuclear sites augmented by hundreds of cruise missiles?

    Would we be justified in attacking Iran? Their weapons have been used to kill US military in Iraq and Afghanistan for years. Probably a formal declaration of war would be difficult due to secrecy, but consultation and bipartisan agreement among the congressional leaders might be achieved.

    Impossible? Improbable?



    Very possible and highly recommended
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 2:50 AM GMT
    First off !! SoCal mentions Iranian weapons ending up in Iraq.

    Had we not stuck our nose in their business at the behest of the Israeli and US Neo Cons, it wouldn't have happened would it ? However, how many in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia and etc. were killed by US made weapons, bullets, and canisters of one kind or another.

    that all came about by US interference for our "oil interests" not for the sake of spreading freedom.





    Lets hope Obama has the good sense to not cave to Israeli Lobby AIPAC convention this coming week, nor to Bibi's pressure through republican and democratic Neo Cons wanting yet another war. Bombing Iran will cause a far reaching negative response and will further weaken the US standing in the world. We should avoid this war Israel wants with Iran at all costs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:08 AM GMT
    Bomb Iran now
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:21 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidIsrael and the right-wing in the US have been fear-mongering that Iran will get the bomb for over 30 years. It's no more likely now than it was then.

    If you think Obama is weak on the MIddle East, ask Osama bin Laden, or Qadafi how weak he is. Maybe ask the various Iranian scientists who have been assassinated by American drone strikes during Obama's tenure (which I do not agree with).

    And I believe even Netanyahu referred to him as the greatest friend Israel has ever had.

    The Republicans can't run on an improving economy and Romney has lost his only rationale for being the nominee (his "inevitability"), so - sure - let's pretend Iran is going to nuke us or Israel. icon_rolleyes.gif

    Let's not get off on a tangent. BTW - He agreed to bin Laden mission, which a great percentage of people said was a no-brainer (49% each way, probably along party lines). As far as Qadafi, we led from behind, and it was motivated by the Europeans. The NATO command structure without US leadership was weak, and Obama waffled for weeks before allowing the US to take more of a role. Weak.


    A "no brainer"? Then why didn't W kill Osama during the 7 years he was CIC?

    As far as Lybia, I was initially opposed to intervention since we didn't need to be invading another Muslim country, but the humanitarian mission eventually won me over. Still there was no reason for it to be a US led invasion and it was smart in terms of global politics to allow Europe to take the lead. Your claims of NATO being "weak" are just Monday Morning quarterbacking. The mission was successfully and we're not occupying yet another country.

    It's called being smart, strategic and doing your due diligence. I realize those are things no associated with your political party.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:22 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree saidBomb Iran now


    As soon as the 1% pay their fair share in taxes, we can bomb whoever you'd like. Until then, we can't afford another war. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 3:44 AM GMT
    Christian73 said A "no brainer"? Then why didn't W kill Osama during the 7 years he was CIC?

    His position had not been established. Do you seriously believe Bush would have hesitated calling the strike with the same information?

    Christian73 saidAs far as Lybia, I was initially opposed to intervention since we didn't need to be invading another Muslim country, but the humanitarian mission eventually won me over. Still there was no reason for it to be a US led invasion and it was smart in terms of global politics to allow Europe to take the lead. Your claims of NATO being "weak" are just Monday Morning quarterbacking. The mission was successfully and we're not occupying yet another country.

    I didn't mind Europe taking the lead initially. But the command structure being weak without US leadership was not Monday morning quarterbacking. It was observed, led to calls for the US to take more of a role, Obama waffled for several weeks, increasing the casualties, before finally agreeing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 4:00 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said A "no brainer"? Then why didn't W kill Osama during the 7 years he was CIC?

    His position had not been established. Do you seriously believe Bush would have hesitated calling the strike with the same information?

    Christian73 saidAs far as Lybia, I was initially opposed to intervention since we didn't need to be invading another Muslim country, but the humanitarian mission eventually won me over. Still there was no reason for it to be a US led invasion and it was smart in terms of global politics to allow Europe to take the lead. Your claims of NATO being "weak" are just Monday Morning quarterbacking. The mission was successfully and we're not occupying yet another country.

    I didn't mind Europe taking the lead initially. But the command structure being weak without US leadership was not Monday morning quarterbacking. It was observed, led to calls for the US to take more of a role, Obama waffled for several weeks, increasing the casualties, before finally agreeing.




    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    God damn SoCal, you've sure got a high opinion of your far right Ideology don't you !!! Who the hell are you to "MIND" Europe to take the lead" ? Is this statement above coming from your far right "American exceptionalism" Ideology ?

    I'll bet everyone in high places are really glad when you came to "finally agreeing". You'd better be getting on a government consulting list, alfter all where would 'American exceptionalism' be without your 'minding' and 'agreeing'. God your a real GEM !!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 4:52 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidI have the opinion that Obama will do whatever he can to get reelected. I know others disagree that he is so self-centered. But suppose what helps him get reelected is also considered good policy by many?

    Ok Ill play.. but first:

    I have the opinion that a Republican will do whatever he can to get elected. I know others disagree that he is so self-centered. But suppose what helps him get elected is also considered good policy by many?
    I changed a few things.. but not much.

    Does this sound familiar at all?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 4:56 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree saidBomb Iran now


    As soon as the 1% pay their fair share in taxes, we can bomb whoever you'd like. Until then, we can't afford another war. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Since they already pay about half the taxes .... then let the bombing begin!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 5:09 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree saidBomb Iran now


    As soon as the 1% pay their fair share in taxes, we can bomb whoever you'd like. Until then, we can't afford another war. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Since they already pay about half the taxes .... then let the bombing begin!


    No. They don't.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 5:11 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said A "no brainer"? Then why didn't W kill Osama during the 7 years he was CIC?

    His position had not been established. Do you seriously believe Bush would have hesitated calling the strike with the same information?

    Christian73 saidAs far as Lybia, I was initially opposed to intervention since we didn't need to be invading another Muslim country, but the humanitarian mission eventually won me over. Still there was no reason for it to be a US led invasion and it was smart in terms of global politics to allow Europe to take the lead. Your claims of NATO being "weak" are just Monday Morning quarterbacking. The mission was successfully and we're not occupying yet another country.

    I didn't mind Europe taking the lead initially. But the command structure being weak without US leadership was not Monday morning quarterbacking. It was observed, led to calls for the US to take more of a role, Obama waffled for several weeks, increasing the casualties, before finally agreeing.


    I believe that the Bush family have long been friends with the bin Ladens and helped them leave the country in the wake of 9/11. I also think it was very convenient for Bush/Cheney to have a bogey man that they could use to frighten the American people and they weren't really interested in capturing or killing bin Laden or they could have at Tora Bora.

    Your revisionist history of the Lybia campaign may convince others who share your politics but the majority of Americans will not be fooled.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 6:26 AM GMT
    we've armed Israel, they use r technology...that's enough. let them be the fall guy. (i know we'll get blamed anway.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 7:13 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree saidBomb Iran now


    As soon as the 1% pay their fair share in taxes, we can bomb whoever you'd like. Until then, we can't afford another war. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Since they already pay about half the taxes .... then let the bombing begin!


    No. They don't.


    Ok ok I blew it. 36.73%

    http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

    Percentiles Ranked by AGI
    AGI Threshold on Percentiles
    Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

    Top 1%
    $343,927
    36.73

    Top 5%
    $154,643
    58.66

    Top 10%
    $112,124
    70.47

    Top 25%
    $66,193
    87.30

    Top 50%
    $32,396
    97.75

    Bottom 50%
    <$32,396
    2.25

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 7:14 AM GMT
    tailgater_3 saidwe've armed Israel, they use r technology...that's enough. let them be the fall guy. (i know we'll get blamed anway.)


    Well, since we'll get blamed anyway, lets make it worth it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 7:18 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree saidBomb Iran now


    As soon as the 1% pay their fair share in taxes, we can bomb whoever you'd like. Until then, we can't afford another war. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Since they already pay about half the taxes .... then let the bombing begin!


    No. They don't.


    http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html

    How much more would you like out of the 1%?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 8:26 AM GMT
    Christian> fear-mongering that Iran will get the bomb for over 30 years. It's no more likely now than it was then.

    You think that even after their illegal program of 18-years and help from Khan that they're no closer? That they're now just enriching Uranium because they're bored?

    Perhaps some of the reasons they don't yet have the bomb are the set-backs they've encountered? From viruses to losing scientists to explosions at nuclear facilities?

    Seriously, even Jimmy Carter knows that Iran isn't just seeking peaceful nuclear technology.


    Christian> Maybe ask the various Iranian scientists who have been assassinated by American drone strikes during Obama's tenure (which I do not agree with).

    I wasn't aware that any Iranian scientists were killed by drone strikes.


    Christian> As far as Lybia, I was initially opposed to intervention since we didn't need to be invading another Muslim country, but the humanitarian mission eventually won me over. ...It's called being smart, strategic and doing your due diligence.

    Well, some of us were smart enough, etc., to realize what was going to happend in Libya (and Syria) even as others wrongly predicted that the death toll would be lower than in Egypt.


    Christian> I believe that the Bush family have long been friends with the bin Ladens and helped them leave the country in the wake of 9/11.

    The bin Ladin family was having nothing to do with Osama.
    Did you want Bush to hold them hostage or allow vigilante attacks on them?


    Christian> I also think it was very convenient for Bush/Cheney to have a bogey man that they could use to frighten the American people and they weren't really interested in capturing or killing bin Laden or they could have at Tora Bora.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Bush was concerned about American troop casualties and was happy to use other forces - which enabled OBL's escape. There's no shortage of bogey-men out there, nor was OBL a very good one when conventional wisdom said he was hiding in a cave or spider hole if he wasn't already dead due to his medical conditions.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 12:24 PM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree saidBomb Iran now


    As soon as the 1% pay their fair share in taxes, we can bomb whoever you'd like. Until then, we can't afford another war. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Since they already pay about half the taxes .... then let the bombing begin!


    No. They don't.


    http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html

    How much more would you like out of the 1%?


    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 12:28 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidChristian> fear-mongering that Iran will get the bomb for over 30 years. It's no more likely now than it was then.

    You think that even after their illegal program of 18-years and help from Khan that they're no closer? That they're now just enriching Uranium because they're bored?

    Perhaps some of the reasons they don't yet have the bomb are the set-backs they've encountered? From viruses to losing scientists to explosions at nuclear facilities?

    Seriously, even Jimmy Carter knows that Iran isn't just seeking peaceful nuclear technology.


    Christian> Maybe ask the various Iranian scientists who have been assassinated by American drone strikes during Obama's tenure (which I do not agree with).

    I wasn't aware that any Iranian scientists were killed by drone strikes.


    Christian> As far as Lybia, I was initially opposed to intervention since we didn't need to be invading another Muslim country, but the humanitarian mission eventually won me over. ...It's called being smart, strategic and doing your due diligence.

    Well, some of us were smart enough, etc., to realize what was going to happend in Libya (and Syria) even as others wrongly predicted that the death toll would be lower than in Egypt.


    Christian> I believe that the Bush family have long been friends with the bin Ladens and helped them leave the country in the wake of 9/11.

    The bin Ladin family was having nothing to do with Osama.
    Did you want Bush to hold them hostage or allow vigilante attacks on them?


    Christian> I also think it was very convenient for Bush/Cheney to have a bogey man that they could use to frighten the American people and they weren't really interested in capturing or killing bin Laden or they could have at Tora Bora.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Bush was concerned about American troop casualties and was happy to use other forces - which enabled OBL's escape. There's no shortage of bogey-men out there, nor was OBL a very good one when conventional wisdom said he was hiding in a cave or spider hole if he wasn't already dead due to his medical conditions.



    I'm not interested in your relentless pro-Israel POV.

    In terms of the bin Ladens, it is customary in criminal investigations to speak with the family members of a suspected criminal, not fly them out of the country post-haste. The idea that the US government couldn't keep them safe while questioning them is ludicrous.

    And given the fact that OBL was used as a bogey men for 7 years of the Bush administration, they didn't agree with your assessment. And the issue here is not one of effectiveness but of intent. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 5:50 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree said
    Christian73 said
    freedomisntfree saidBomb Iran now


    As soon as the 1% pay their fair share in taxes, we can bomb whoever you'd like. Until then, we can't afford another war. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Since they already pay about half the taxes .... then let the bombing begin!


    No. They don't.


    http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html

    How much more would you like out of the 1%?


    "For everyone to whom much is given, of him shall much be required." -- Luke 12:48


    So again, how much more would you like from the 1%? Is 37% not enough?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 7:44 PM GMT
    Let's keep this thread on topic, about Iran - not taxation.

    You think that even after their illegal program of 18-years and help from Khan that they're no closer?
    That they're now just enriching Uranium because they're bored?

    Perhaps some of the reasons they don't yet have the bomb are the set-backs they've encountered?
    From viruses to losing scientists to explosions at nuclear facilities?

    Seriously, even Jimmy Carter knows that Iran isn't just seeking peaceful nuclear technology.
    Iran has repeatedly hidden its intentions to enrich uranium while claiming that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. This explanation has been given before, by India, Pakistan and North Korea, and has led to weapons programs in all three states. Iran must be called to account and held to its promises under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

    Christian> I'm not interested in your relentless pro-Israel POV.

    I didn't even mention Israel, but keep sticking your head in the sand if it makes you feel better.


    I wasn't aware that any Iranian scientists were killed by drone strikes.

    Christian> I'm not interested in your relentless pro-Israel POV.

    OK then.


    Some of us were "smart" enough, etc., to realize what was going to happen in Libya (and Syria) even as others wrongly predicted that the death toll would be lower than in Egypt.

    Christian> I'm not interested in your relentless pro-Israel POV.

    Whatever you say.


    The bin Ladin family was having nothing to do with Osama.
    Did you want Bush to hold them hostage or allow vigilante attacks on them?


    Christian> it is customary in criminal investigations to speak with the family members of a suspected criminal

    I guess you didn't know that bin Laden's father divorced his mother when Osama was an infant and that he grew up in his step-father's house. I also believe he had not been in contact with his father's family (that's the bin Ladens rather than his mother & step-father's family) in decades. Nonetheless your "model" is based on nothing more than false rumors:

    Flights of Fancy
    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
    The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. ...without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated


    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Bush was concerned about American troop casualties and was happy to use other forces at Tora Bora - which enabled OBL's escape. There's no shortage of bogey-men out there, nor was OBL a very good one when conventional wisdom said he was hiding in a cave or spider hole if he wasn't already dead due to his medical conditions.

    Christian> given the fact that OBL was used as a bogey men for 7 years of the Bush administration, they didn't agree with your assessment. And the issue here is not one of effectiveness but of intent.

    Your claim was that the Bush administration did not want to apprehend OBL.
    It remains as ridiculous as the rest of your baseless natterings.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 8:42 PM GMT
    Wolverine4 saidLet's keep this thread on topic, about Iran - not taxation.

    You think that even after their illegal program of 18-years and help from Khan that they're no closer?
    That they're now just enriching Uranium because they're bored?

    Perhaps some of the reasons they don't yet have the bomb are the set-backs they've encountered?
    From viruses to losing scientists to explosions at nuclear facilities?

    Seriously, even Jimmy Carter knows that Iran isn't just seeking peaceful nuclear technology.
    Iran has repeatedly hidden its intentions to enrich uranium while claiming that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. This explanation has been given before, by India, Pakistan and North Korea, and has led to weapons programs in all three states. Iran must be called to account and held to its promises under the Nonproliferation Treaty.

    Christian> I'm not interested in your relentless pro-Israel POV.

    I didn't even mention Israel, but keep sticking your head in the sand if it makes you feel better.


    I wasn't aware that any Iranian scientists were killed by drone strikes.

    Christian> I'm not interested in your relentless pro-Israel POV.

    OK then.


    Some of us were "smart" enough, etc., to realize what was going to happen in Libya (and Syria) even as others wrongly predicted that the death toll would be lower than in Egypt.

    Christian> I'm not interested in your relentless pro-Israel POV.

    Whatever you say.


    The bin Ladin family was having nothing to do with Osama.
    Did you want Bush to hold them hostage or allow vigilante attacks on them?


    Christian> it is customary in criminal investigations to speak with the family members of a suspected criminal

    I guess you didn't know that bin Laden's father divorced his mother when Osama was an infant and that he grew up in his step-father's house. I also believe he had not been in contact with his father's family (that's the bin Ladens rather than his mother & step-father's family) in decades. Nonetheless your "model" is based on nothing more than false rumors:

    Flights of Fancy
    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
    The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. ...without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated


    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. Bush was concerned about American troop casualties and was happy to use other forces at Tora Bora - which enabled OBL's escape. There's no shortage of bogey-men out there, nor was OBL a very good one when conventional wisdom said he was hiding in a cave or spider hole if he wasn't already dead due to his medical conditions.

    Christian> given the fact that OBL was used as a bogey men for 7 years of the Bush administration, they didn't agree with your assessment. And the issue here is not one of effectiveness but of intent.

    Your claim was that the Bush administration did not want to apprehend OBL.
    It remains as ridiculous as the rest of your baseless natterings.



    And this is why no one wants to debate with you. You are even worse than riddler in your constant creations of straw man arguments and arguing against points not made.

    You actually don't need to respond to what I've written. You can just continue to post arguments that address points I've not made, rumors I've not cited, and claims debunked by Snopes that I never raised. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 03, 2012 10:34 PM GMT
    Christian swings - and misses:

    Christopher> You can just continue to post arguments that address points I've not made, rumors I've not cited, and claims debunked by Snopes that I never raised.

    In my original post I had included your commets.
    I'm sorry I left them out for brevity in my last post.
    I didn't realize that you'd forget so quickly what you had said.


    Christian> fear-mongering that Iran will get the bomb for over 30 years. It's no more likely now than it was then.

    Is it a "straw man" that I called you on whether their illegal 18-year program and outside help hasn't gotten them closer?
    Does anyone agree that it is as "unlikely" now as it was in 1982?

    I also pointed out that certain man-made setbacks have precluded them from reaching their goal.
    You didn't preclude that but it's a logical extension of the conversation.


    Christian> the various Iranian scientists who have been assassinated by American drone strikes during Obama's tenure

    OK, explain: why is pointing out your error a "straw man"?


    Christian> As far as Lybia, I was initially opposed to intervention since we didn't need to be invading another Muslim country, but the humanitarian mission eventually won me over. ...It's called being smart, strategic and doing your due diligence.

    As I stated, some of us were "smart" enough, etc., to realize what was going to happend in Libya (and Syria).

    Though credit is due that when found wrong you changed your mind.
    You should try that more often....


    Christian> it is customary in criminal investigations to speak with the family members of a suspected criminal, not fly them out of the country post-haste. The idea that the US government couldn't keep them safe while questioning them is ludicrous.

    Snopes> The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. ...without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated

    Snopes> 22 of the 26 passengers on the Bin Ladin flight were interviewed by the FBI

    Previously you had also claimed the following, which is also shown wrong (had you followed the link):

    Christian> I believe that the Bush family have long been friends with the bin Ladens and helped them leave the country in the wake of 9/11.

    Snopes> no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi nationals.

    Sorry, no "straw man" on my part, just your mistaken notions exposed.



    Christian> they weren't really interested in capturing or killing bin Laden

    Wolverine4> Your claim was that the Bush administration did not want to apprehend OBL

    What is a straw man here?


    You want a legitimate example of a "straw man" argument?

    Christian> I'm not interested in your relentless pro-Israel POV.

    I hadn't even mentioned Israel!
    (Not to mention that the argument itself is ad hominem.)


    I'm guessing that having been shown wrong on every point, you'll drop out of the discussion.
    That's fine, but at least try to avoid the personal attacks because you have no argument of substance.