Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 1/23/09 11:53 PM, Tebone7 wrote:

There's no way for us to truly prevent another 9/11 with military action. Having soldiers, pilots, marines, and sailors in the Middle East doesn't prevent 1 guy from sneaking into a cockpit, killing the pilot, and crashing it into something. Having more soldiers, pilots, marines, and sailors in the US might. And what exactly did you want Clinton to do about the bombing in 93? Invade a country then? No, the only way to prevent terrorism on US soil is to be vigilant here. But at the same time, we can't keep living in fear of terrorist all the time.

I never once said that it "doesn't prevent 1 guy from sneaking into a cockpit...". I just said that it hasn't happened since America did. And i would have liked clinton to have at least done more investigations. Though i was very young, i still remember him trying to make treaties with all these other countries, which apparently hasn't done too much good. I cannot speak out of tangible knowledge though, I don't have the patience to find the articles stating what happened, though even if i did. Every country would have a different opinion, so history is harder to actually be believe unless you were there to see it.

That's another part of the problem. We're trying to fight a war against a group of people, not a country. Not only can they blend into the population at any time they'd like, they don't answer to their government. Right now, we're trying to swat a mosquito with a cruiser missile. If we're going to stop a terrorist from flying around the world to attack us, it's easier to catch him with a spy than a tank.

And bring our troops back here at this moment would be the dumbest thing we could do. Take that our country was just invaded by some other country, doesn't matter what country, then all of a sudden they leave and say take care of it on your own. What do you think America would do, just sit there and look pretty or have it's citizens so enraged that they want to invade that country and kill everyone in it? It's kinda obvious it's the second one. Kinda like if big bad timmy punches you in the stomach and takes your lunch money for no reason, you want revenge- and your money back.

The withdraw will need to be appropriately phased. But remember also how much it's costing to keep our guys over there, and how we could actually use some of that money here right now, so we DO need to get out of there.

---

He actually is saying he's ending the war? Wow, that's...good.

---

At 1/24/09 11:25 AM, Ericho wrote: He actually is saying he's ending the war? Wow, that's...good.

the war on terror. Not the war in Afghanistan.

Its kinda like the war on drugs, you'd be fighting a perputual war if you fought terror, because it always will exist.

All Obama said is that we aren't going to go and attack everyone we think is bad *coughcough*Iraq* coughcough*

---

At 1/24/09 11:39 AM, heroicspatula wrote:

All Obama said is that we aren't going to go and attack everyone we think is bad *coughcough*Iraq* coughcough*

Have you heard his comments on Pakistan?

---

At 1/24/09 11:41 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/24/09 11:39 AM, heroicspatula wrote:

All Obama said is that we aren't going to go and attack everyone we think is bad *coughcough*Iraq* coughcough*

Have you heard his comments on Pakistan?

I have, but those are going to be "peacekeeping activities", that's completely different! </sarcasm>

I don't think Obama would Invade Pakistan though, I think Pakistan would be more likely to listen to him rather thhan risk war. I don't think the people in this country would support that either.
I mean, think of it. We get out of Iraq, only to turn around and invade Pakistan? People would be pissed.

---

At 1/24/09 04:22 PM, heroicspatula wrote: I have, but those are going to be "peacekeeping activities", that's completely different! </sarcasm>

I don't think Obama would Invade Pakistan though, I think Pakistan would be more likely to listen to him rather thhan risk war. I don't think the people in this country would support that either.
I mean, think of it. We get out of Iraq, only to turn around and invade Pakistan? People would be pissed.

Not only that, but it would be an extremely strategically idiotic plan. Obama will encroach belligerently on Pakistani territory, but he is not going to try to overthrow their government. This is very far from his plans. He will actually likely attempt to get as much cooperation with them in his bombings of their territory as he can, and they will probably grant it.

---

At 1/23/09 04:22 PM, JoS wrote: I heard that he is going to rename it the Tickle fight on Terror.

Seriously, no one found this funny?

---

At 1/24/09 11:30 PM, JoS wrote: Seriously, no one found this funny?

I did.

Also Memorize, you're leaving out the part where he is closing Guantanemo WITHIN A YEAR. Not tomorrow, not next week. Within a year, so my assumption is that he is making the statement of "I'm gonna close it, so let's get the ball rolling on where we'll put them". He's got time to work out where they'll go. Also your "most people want it open" please show me some actual evidence for that because I could simply pull things out of my ass too and say that more people want it closed based on my experience. Well, ok, I wouldn't exactly be pulling it out of my ass since that's something he said he'd do while campaigning and he got elected.

I also like how you keep bringing up what he "will do" like you have a crystal ball. You're repeating this stuff about the deficits and what not like it's a meme and it's getting tired. At least to me since I see your name in every Obama thread, right now all I've seen is him so far doing what he's promised us he'd do.

Also on the Pakistan thing, a few missles from an unmanned drone on a single target a target we KNOW is one of the bad guys, is WAY different then an entire war waged with bad evidence and outright lies. Plus, we are still engaged with Pakistan diplomatically at the moment as well, I see the missle attack as Obama just pre-emptively showing them that if they don't cooperate he will use force if need be. How he applies it of course I will be watching closely.

---

At 1/23/09 07:34 PM, Patton3 wrote: What we were doing before and during Bush was letting our men fight out-numbered in the only country we could legitimately argue we should have been in.

Which country is that?

---

Okay in 20 years or so, this whole mess is going to make for some pretty bitching video games, so as long as you don't know anybody that dies it's all good. And if you do know anybody you can see their brains splatter over your platoon in some cut scene. Awesome.

---

At 1/25/09 12:25 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Also Memorize, you're leaving out the part where he is closing Guantanemo WITHIN A YEAR. Not tomorrow, not next week. Within a year, so my assumption is that he is making the statement of "I'm gonna close it, so let's get the ball rolling on where we'll put them". He's got time to work out where they'll go.

Does that matter?

Point remains you're supposed to figure out where to put them before you even start to move to close it. Otherwise you're making a petty move to appeal to your idiotic fan base.

Also your "most people want it open" please show me some actual evidence for that because I could simply pull things out of my ass too and say that more people want it closed based on my experience. Well, ok, I wouldn't exactly be pulling it out of my ass since that's something he said he'd do while campaigning and he got elected.

Rasmussen

Nearly half of U.S. voters (49%) say the United States should not close the terrorist prison camp at Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba, but the identical number (49%) also say Barack Obama is Very likely to close it in the first year of his presidency.

Only 32% of voters say the Guantanamo prison camp should be closed.

I also like how you keep bringing up what he "will do" like you have a crystal ball.

He said and I quote: "There will be trillion dollar deficits for years to come".

We're still in Iraq. He made withdrawing a center piece of his campaign only to turn around and say he would "leave a risidual force" of an unspecified size.

He's going to use the surge strategy from Iraq (which he claimed either failed or did nothing) and use it in Afghanistan (yeah... he's SO anti-war).

He doesn't plan on getting our military out of those 130 countries around the world.

He's already bombed areas inside Pakistan.

On top of that...

He pledged that he would fillibuster any bill that would support FISA... then when the time comes to vote, he votes in favor of FISA.

He said he was going to tax the rich (or let the tax cuts expire) and give that money to middle and working class Americans in the form of Tax cuts (ie. Government spending through a rebate check), only to turn around at a moment's notice and support every bailout as if to say "Sorry, I'm going to have to hold off on my promise to give you money, so now I'll be taking your middle class money and give it to the evil, greedy CEO's I was talking about".

You're repeating this stuff about the deficits and what not like it's a meme and it's getting tired.

Funny, it wasn't tiring when Bush was shattering records. Now we get a guy who outright plans on tripling Bush's record highs and it's "tiring"? Lol!

At least to me since I see your name in every Obama thread, right now all I've seen is him so far doing what he's promised us he'd do.

All he's done is change the name of a "war" back to "peace" and plans to close Gitmo before figuring out where he's going to put the prisoners, and bombed areas in Pakistan while also planning on another surge in Afghanistan.

These are "changes" to you?

I swear, it's about as retarded as tapping someone in the shoulder and having someone else yelling at you for "poking" the guy in the shoulder.

Just because he changes the "war on terror" to a "peace keeping mission" doesn't mean shit when the results are the same.

Also on the Pakistan thing, a few missles from an unmanned drone on a single target a target we KNOW is one of the bad guys, is WAY different then an entire war waged with bad evidence and outright lies.

"Outright lies"?

Sorry, incorrect.

The correct answer is: "World agency stupidity".

Plus, we are still engaged with Pakistan diplomatically at the moment as well, I see the missle attack as Obama just pre-emptively showing them that if they don't cooperate he will use force if need be. How he applies it of course I will be watching closely.

Where was such accommodation when Bush did this?

---

At 1/24/09 11:39 AM, heroicspatula wrote:

At 1/24/09 11:25 AM, Ericho wrote: He actually is saying he's ending the war? Wow, that's...good.

the war on terror. Not the war in Afghanistan.

I personally don't fight anything wrong with the war in Afghanistan. That is the place where we should be fighting as the most dangerous members of Al-Quada are there, or at least the most important.

---

At 1/25/09 12:18 PM, Ericho wrote:

I personally don't fight anything wrong with the war in Afghanistan. That is the place where we should be fighting as the most dangerous members of Al-Quada are there, or at least the most important.

Except Bin Laden, of course.

---

At 1/23/09 11:09 AM, FUNKbrs wrote::

I think he means more of an "AMERICA: World Police" type thing that Clinton was always doing. You know, where you still pretty much rape foreign countries and kill whoever you want to, but you don't call it a "War" but a "peacekeeping mission" with "peace" being used in the same context as the famous pistol known as the "peacemaker"

I think he's genuinely going for a more ethical stance. Come on, if the peace he's going for really is more like a pistol then he might actually be taking up the badge and hand cuffs too, and genuinely filling out the paperwork for the international community after he fires it.

When CLINTON invaded Iraq, it was "Operation Desert Fox" and it "wasn't a war," you know, even though he bombed the shit out of the place and killed a bunch of people with uniformed government trained soldiers. When Bush invaded Iraq, at least he was HONEST enough to call it a war and take the flak for it.

I quote Bill Hicks when he said: "It wasn't a war, because in war you need two sides".

But yeah, mostly I'm just nit picking to be honest.

)?

---

I remember the more innocent times when it was known as The War Against Terror - until it swiftly became known as TWAT...

---

Operation Desert Fox? How big was that? I thought nowadays Bill Clinton is known for not taking military action against terrorists.

---

At 1/25/09 02:41 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: I remember the more innocent times when it was known as The War Against Terror - until it swiftly became known as TWAT...

Lawl.

Anyway, I personally think that the War on Terror was kind of dumb. Gramted, the 9-11 attacks, but still.
"We have no proof that they are a threat to America, but I suspect them. LAUNCH THE NUKES!!"

---

Its true that this war is a long one (2001-present), but with obama sending more troops to Afghanistan this might be over quicker, I dont believe we should start "nuking" Afghanistan as the Taliban are spread across the entire country...

---

At 1/23/09 10:05 AM, HandsomePete wrote: Obama called an end to the use of the term War on Terror today. The US is going back to fighting terrorism the way it always had before Bush. Basically, what this seems to mean is that we won't be invading countries because we consider them terrorists, and the gesture is mostly symbolic.
Feel free to feel how you feel about this. I personally don't feel any less safe.

Link

you have know idea of what your talking about do you?
the war in iraq war over WMD's and Sadam harboring terrorists as the leader of iraq.
the war on terror is being fought all over the place. the biggest and most important battle is in Afganistan/Pakistan. (in the mountains) somewhere bin laden is hiding. there will still be a war on terror, but it is no longer going to be in iraq

---

Oh, America won't be invading countries anymore, eh?

If that's the case, then why is Obama ordering strikes on Pakistan every other day.

Nothing has changed. It's just being veiled better.

---

At 1/24/09 11:41 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 1/24/09 11:39 AM, heroicspatula wrote:

All Obama said is that we aren't going to go and attack everyone we think is bad *coughcough*Iraq* coughcough*

Have you heard his comments on Pakistan?

Would you provide a link to them?

---

At 1/23/09 10:05 AM, HandsomePete wrote: Obama called an end to the use of the term War on Terror today. The US is going back to fighting terrorism the way it always had before Bush. Basically, what this seems to mean is that we won't be invading countries because we consider them terrorists, and the gesture is mostly symbolic.
Feel free to feel how you feel about this. I personally don't feel any less safe.

Link

Frigin war on terror was never one, it was a war of bullshit n everyone can agree that the only way America would be at all safer than its ever going to be is if Bush had just pushed a destroy the earth button or turned into an full dictatorship where if you question the authorities, you die.
But obviously everyone can aslo agree that something like that will never happen and should never happen.

---

At 1/25/09 10:15 AM, Memorize wrote: Does that matter?

Well, yeah. Because it's a bad idea to just turn them out on the streets.

Point remains you're supposed to figure out where to put them before you even start to move to close it. Otherwise you're making a petty move to appeal to your idiotic fan base.

Appeal to the base? Yes. Petty? Don't think so. To me it looks like a politician who is perhaps a bit overeager to be shown as a "gets results" kind of guy.

We're still in Iraq. He made withdrawing a center piece of his campaign only to turn around and say he would "leave a risidual force" of an unspecified size.

Uh huh, but we consider the Korean War over, have for the better part of 50 years now yet we still have a residual troop level there. To me this seems like the same sort of thing. We spent lots of time, money, and blood to establish their government, so I can see why any president wouldn't want to pull out completely and leave said government potentially to the mercy of insurgents. I'd love to have a number on that troop level though myself.

He's going to use the surge strategy from Iraq (which he claimed either failed or did nothing) and use it in Afghanistan (yeah... he's SO anti-war).

Perhaps too he means some of the strategies that we weren't told about with the surge that reinforced it (something along the lines of what Bob Woodward described as "akin to exploding gift baskets" or the paying the bad guys not to shoot at us). At least he's considering strategies to deal with the war we waged against the people who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US!!!

He doesn't plan on getting our military out of those 130 countries around the world.

Neither would have McCain or probably anybody else.

He's already bombed areas inside Pakistan.

True, but those were more like surgical strikes at targets who back up the objective we went to war with Pakistan with that I, and many other DID support: To end and eradicate the Taliban and other extremists who proved themselves a threat to this country.

Funny, it wasn't tiring when Bush was shattering records. Now we get a guy who outright plans on tripling Bush's record highs and it's "tiring"? Lol!

Maybe because some of those highs were being exacerbated by a worthless and wasteful war we should have never entered into. At least Obama is TRYING to fix the economy.

All he's done is change the name of a "war" back to "peace" and plans to close Gitmo before figuring out where he's going to put the prisoners, and bombed areas in Pakistan while also planning on another surge in Afghanistan.

These are "changes" to you?

Actually, yeah, those are. Since under Bush there was never a plan to close Gitmo, no plan to deal with Pakistan, and Afghanistan seemed to be all but forgotten as he desperately tried to salvage the Iraq situation and the public image of it. These are in fact changes from Bush policies. Whether or not these will ultimately be positive changes we'll see. But in terms of does this meet the definition of change? Yep.

"Outright lies"?

Sorry, incorrect.

The correct answer is: "World agency stupidity".

Really? Cause it was still Dick Cheney and George Bush saying "Unquestionably there are weapons there" and never apologizing for the faux paux, just shifting blame. Also, where is the world stupidity when the UN said up and down the reason THEY wouldn't support US is because they could not find evidence as "conclusive" as Bush and Cheney seemed to have?

Where was such accommodation when Bush did this?

Again, because when you engage in wars that do not prove your safeguarding this country, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. When you're administration is built on lies, torture, and you're own interpretation of what the president should and shouldn't be able to do, not what the CONSTITUTION says...well, makes it harder to give any benefit of the doubt. By the way, what happened to "I hated what Bush did"? You sound a lot like your supporting him right about now. Maybe we should be a little more weary of your ability to be truthful about your politics.

---

At 1/29/09 12:08 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Well, yeah. Because it's a bad idea to just turn them out on the streets.

I just think it's funny that the politicians who demand the closing of Gitmo are the least likely to take in the prisoners in their district (ie. Nanci Pelosi, lol).

Appeal to the base? Yes. Petty? Don't think so. To me it looks like a politician who is perhaps a bit overeager to be shown as a "gets results" kind of guy.

I think it's petty considering how similar both parties are.

Uh huh, but we consider the Korean War over, have for the better part of 50 years now yet we still have a residual troop level there.

It's when he goes from "all out withdraw" to criticizing McCain for saying "100 year pact (like with Korea)" to suddenly an unspecified size of "residual forces (hey, reminds me of McCain)" when the war suddenly turns around.

To me this seems like the same sort of thing. We spent lots of time, money, and blood to establish their government, so I can see why any president wouldn't want to pull out completely and leave said government potentially to the mercy of insurgents. I'd love to have a number on that troop level though myself.

Didn't Obama vote to do that very thing?

Or was he absent like he almost always is?

Perhaps too he means some of the strategies that we weren't told about with the surge that reinforced it (something along the lines of what Bob Woodward described as "akin to exploding gift baskets" or the paying the bad guys not to shoot at us). At least he's considering strategies to deal with the war we waged against the people who ACTUALLY ATTACKED US!!!

The Taliban didn't attack us.

Besides, we're not supposed to nation build in Afghanistan either.

And I seem to recall that we aided and radicalized the Taliban against the Soviets in the 80's.

He doesn't plan on getting our military out of those 130 countries around the world.

Neither would have McCain or probably anybody else.

Which is why I consider them all so similar, and not in a good way.

True, but those were more like surgical strikes at targets who back up the objective we went to war with Pakistan with that I, and many other DID support: To end and eradicate the Taliban and other extremists who proved themselves a threat to this country.

But the terrorists didn't come from Afghanistan or the Taliban.

They came from places like Saudi Arabia. The Taliban was merely tolerant of Al Qaeda, not aiding Al Qaeda.

Maybe because some of those highs were being exacerbated by a worthless and wasteful war we should have never entered into. At least Obama is TRYING to fix the economy.

By doing EVERYTHING Bush has done and doubling down on Bush's policies?

Keeping the Military in 134 countries.
Continuing our prescense in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Supported EVERY bailout.
$819 billion stimulus package with "Trillion dollar deficits for years to come".

Even WITH Iraq, we would not obtain a budget surplus. We would not close our deficit.

But let's say we do get out of Iraq completely, Obama STILL is going to triple Bush's record high deficits, which means a net LOSS for our budget.

Actually, yeah, those are. Since under Bush there was never a plan to close Gitmo, no plan to deal with Pakistan, and Afghanistan seemed to be all but forgotten as he desperately tried to salvage the Iraq situation and the public image of it.

We're not supposed to be nation building in Afghanistan.
We're not supposed to continue our nation building in Iraq (which Obama supports).
We're not supposed to be bombing Pakistan (which Obama has already done).
We're not supposed to have our military in 134 countries (which Obama supports and is why many arabs are pissed at the US).

These are in fact changes from Bush policies.

No, they're not.

Whether or not these will ultimately be positive changes we'll see. But in terms of does this meet the definition of change? Yep.

Not when he goes from "All out withdrawl" to "Continuing our path" in Iraq.

His decision to close Gitmo is even more pathetic. As already pointed out.

Really? Cause it was still Dick Cheney and George Bush saying "Unquestionably there are weapons there" and never apologizing for the faux paux, just shifting blame.

Because Clinton's invasion of Iraq and sanctions and creation of FISA in 1998 certainly doesn't warrant an apology, right?

Also, where is the world stupidity when the UN said up and down the reason THEY wouldn't support US is because they could not find evidence as "conclusive" as Bush and Cheney seemed to have?

Do we need Cellar to come in here and demonstrate how Blix of the UN even stated that Saddam gave false and contradictory reports to his WMD program and how that the UN didn't take a stance on his WMDs?

Again, because when you engage in wars that do not prove your safeguarding this country, you don't get the benefit of the doubt. When you're administration is built on lies, torture, and you're own interpretation of what the president should and shouldn't be able to do, not what the CONSTITUTION says...well, makes it harder to give any benefit of the doubt.

So Obama supporting the bailouts is Constitutional?
Obama bombing Pakistan without permission (like Bush) is Constitutional?
Obama continuing our prescense in 134 countries is Constitutional when the founders said not to entangle ourselves in foreign affairs?

Built on lies? This is pathetic.

The Government isn't that smart.

By the way, what happened to "I hated what Bush did"? You sound a lot like your supporting him right about now.

I do hate what Bush did.

I'm only defending him in the sense that I find it absolutely hillarious that people LOVE Obama and HATE Bush, when their policies are EXACTLY THE SAME.

Maybe we should be a little more weary of your ability to be truthful about your politics.

A better question would be: Why do YOU criticize Bush's policies while loving Obama while he continues those policies?

---

So he changed the name, but is still invanding other countries?

U.S...... assholes until death, huh?