Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Proportionate reponse only works when you kill he guy trying to kill you. Otherwise its a missed shot.

See, that would make sense if this were a mob movie, but its not. This is geopolitics, we're talking about groups, not individuals. Its nigh unto impossible to kill an entire group of people; especially when the group identity is predicated on ideological committment which tends to outlive any given series of targets.

Frazzled wrote:
Your own argument fails. If it was proportionate it sure didn't work now did it?

No, it worked. The response dealt with those people who were a threat as a result of the immediate bombings on the embassies. They weren't given an opportunity to strike again, because they were killed and security was increased in US embassies around the world.

Your operating under the illusion that its possible to end the danger to American lives. It isn't. The best we can do is minimize it through the control our resources allow us to exercise.

dogma wrote:

No, it worked. The response dealt with those people who were a threat as a result of the immediate bombings on the embassies. They weren't given an opportunity to strike again, because they were killed and security was increased in US embassies around the world.

Your operating under the illusion that its possible to end the danger to American lives. It isn't. The best we can do is minimize it through the control our resources allow us to exercise.

Clearly it didn't work if they kept hitting, culminating in the Towers.
To KK, yep its a cluster but we haven't been attacked, which is more than can be said previously.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

No, it worked. The response dealt with those people who were a threat as a result of the immediate bombings on the embassies. They weren't given an opportunity to strike again, because they were killed and security was increased in US embassies around the world.

Your operating under the illusion that its possible to end the danger to American lives. It isn't. The best we can do is minimize it through the control our resources allow us to exercise.

Clearly it didn't work if they kept hitting, culminating in the Towers.
To KK, yep its a cluster but we haven't been attacked, which is more than can be said previously.

I have this stone that magically keeps tigers away from your monitor. Are there tigers near your monitor? See, it works. Magic is real!

dogma wrote:

BloodofOrks wrote:
When the same number of cvilian deaths occurred in 2001 we went to war. Clinton fired some cruise missiles.

212 people died in the embassy bombings, only 12 were American citizens. 2,995 people died in the WTC attack, all American citizens. I was unaware that 2,995 and 12 were the same number.

I believe Fraz said this one. I'm not taking credit that remark.

Apparently my computer ate my post where I acknowledged Rice was not part of PNAC. I will say it again, Rice was not part of PNAC. Sorry, I was wrong. There's not need to beat me over the head with it.

The real thing I think people need to look at is will people think Obama not getting much done is what his entire presidency will turn into?

Like really think about it. If every time he wants to do something the republicans say no, I'll still vote for him. It isn't his fault. But some people on the same side as me might as well cycle another republican into office so we can get another Dem in four years who the republicans don't arbitrarily hate.

Frazzled wrote:You mean the one where Libya quit sponsoring terrorism right? I'm sure the people who are alive because we made them stop are quite thankful.

If you want to be a giant mangina, bend over the table and tell the world to us till we die just say so and quit the sophistry. You and yours can go to the extermination camp. Me and mine won't go so quietly into the night thank you very much.

We didn't make them do a damn thing, unless by "we", you mean the UN. I mean, if we'd invaded Libya and forced them to stop, I'm pretty sure that would have hit the news.

See, that second bit is why you fail as a mod. Personal attacks completely out of relation to the conversation are something to expect out of our younger members, not a moderator. How do you jump from me essentailly saying "America doesn't torture" to you saying "extermination camps"? I'm sure the process is fascinating, and would be even more engaging if it had a lick of engagement with reality.

i dont think he will win honestly. he has lost most of his support during this year.

To KK, yep its a cluster but we haven't been attacked, which is more than can be said previously.

YOU may not have been, but WE have. Remember 7/7? Didn't think so. The Madrid Train Bombings? No?
What about The Bali Nightclub bombing? Really? Are you sure?

Also, America didn't seem too worried about Libya sponsoring terrorism when it involved the IRA. Plus, it wasn't only Americans who died in the WTC attacks as someone posted - Brits died there too, amongst other nationalities.

IIRC citizens of at least 90 countries died in the WTC attacks.

Frazzled wrote:
Clearly it didn't work if they kept hitting, culminating in the Towers.

Different people. Again, there is a difference between a group, and a person. You're looking at this from the perspective of one individual against another, which is absolutely wrong. As much as you may want to see Al-Qaeda as some kind of homogeneous organization it simply isn't one.

Let's also appreciate the implications of what you're advocating. Twelve Americans were killed in the embassy bombings. Are we supposed to invade any nation which intentionally, or unintentionally, causes the death of 12 American citizens? That's ridiculous, and leads only to colonialism. I thought you wanted to cut back the number of foreign military bases?

Frazzled wrote:
To KK, yep its a cluster but we haven't been attacked, which is more than can be said previously.

Sure we have, or are all those dead soldiers and Iraqi/Afghani civilians (you were offended by foreign, civilian casualties in the case of the embassy bombings, so why not Iraq/Afghanistan?) not indicative of an attack?

BloodofOrks wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

BloodofOrks wrote:If ignoring the memo "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" qualifies one to be president, then sure Condi Rice would be great.

edit: Oh and under her watch as Secretary of State, North Korea got nukes, so rock on!

I'm not a Condi apologist, but both of those things would have happened, no matter who was the NSA or Sec of state.



GG

I'm sorry but I don't buy the whole 9/11 was inevitable argument. Their were several clearly worded reports on Al Queda presented to the White house prior to the attacks. The WH did noting in response to these warnings. Also, Bush referring to N Korea as part of the "axis of evil" caused them to massively ramp up their nuclear program. IMHO Rice was a weak, ineffective figure during the Bush years and it is extremely unlikely that she could ever be elected.

It's really impossible to say whether or not it was inevitable isn't it. I mean, it's my opinion that whoever was in office would have ignored the memos becuase they would have considered it noise. If I recall there were several memos saying bin laden to attack america is imminent. Dating even back to Clinton era.

Now as far as Rice being weak. She is the one that came up with the plan(or at least listened to the generals) to "fix" the Iraq situation with "the surge". The surge worked even though most people didn't think it would. I also watched a Fontline program that went into detail on some other things she fixed when rummy the vampire was fired..err um... resigned.

GG

The initial purpose of the surge was to calm things down to allow the Iraqi government time to reach political consensus regarding Iraq's economy as well as brokering peace amongst different groups of Iraqis. While violence did drop, few political reconciliations have been reached . It is important to note that Muqtada al-Sadir, head of the Mahdi army, was keeping the group on a short leash as he was attempting to cultivate his political power which meant far fewer attacks from the Mahdi army. Also, their was the Sunni Awakening in which the US convinced (and paid) Sunnis to take up arms against other Sunni extremists. Also, it has been argued that much of the drop in violence in Iraq was the result of ethnic cleansing. Basically the integrated neighborhoods where much of the fighting had been taking place had been won over by one side or the other resulting in large groups of people packing up and getting the hell out of dodge. Iran of all places helped negotiate cease fires in a few areas of Iraq as well.

Whether the surge worked or not is a bit of a question mark. Was the purpose of the surge to lower violence, or to allow Iraq's government breathing room to get much needed work done? What other factors influenced the outcome surge and by how much? I'm not sure I would call the surge a success, at least not a clear cut success. Things appeared to improve, but it's hard to measure which factors played the largest role, or if the perceived improvement is real or if it will last. Whether or not the surge worked depends largely on who you ask.

All things considered, Rice was better then Rumsfeld, but who isn't?

generalgrog wrote:Now as far as Rice being weak. She is the one that came up with the plan(or at least listened to the generals) to "fix" the Iraq situation with "the surge". The surge worked even though most people didn't think it would. I also watched a Fontline program that went into detail on some other things she fixed when rummy the vampire was fired..err um... resigned.GG

Yeah, but she was in the midst of the Whitehouse from beginning to end. She can be tied to much of the policy of the Bush administration, and those policies are not looked upon favourably by many people.

No matter how many of the better parts of Bush policy were hers, she will be left with all the baggage. Same with Powell. The Bush admin left some pretty promising careers in its wake.

BloodofOrks wrote:
All things considered, Rice was better then Rumsfeld, but who isn't?

Rice and Rumsfeld have never held the same office.

BloodofOrks wrote:
Whether the surge worked or not is a bit of a question mark. Was the purpose of the surge to lower violence, or to allow Iraq's government breathing room to get much needed work done?

These are independent goals? Its very difficult to claim that the surge did not work (where surge is not just an increase in troop deployments, but a strategic choice which enabled a number of previously off-limits tactics) without being deliberately obtuse.

garret wrote:i dont think he will win honestly. he has lost most of his support during this year.

He hasn't lost a lot of his support. It just seems like it. The news likes to be negative. The more negative the world seems the more people watch.

Topical point Typeline.
Gallup 50% as of today. He's still ahead of Bill Clinton at the same time in his Presidency.

Point of order to top that off, Frazz.

Bill Clinton, regardless of anyone's belifs of guilt or innocence, or the statements or validity of polls by Gallup or anyone else; got re-elected whilst under impeachment proceedings.

Love him or hate him.

grizgrin wrote:Point of order to top that off, Frazz.

Bill Clinton, regardless of anyone's belifs of guilt or innocence, or the statements or validity of polls by Gallup or anyone else; got re-elected whilst under impeachment proceedings.

Love him or hate him.

Not saying otherwise. Just saw that stat right before the Typeline post.

RE: The OP question:

Yes, of course Obama can win the next US Presidential election.

If at the time of the election most people are better off than they were 4 years ago and the economy is all better, he will have a good chance at reelection.

However, if people are still out of work at that time, he can kiss the job goodbye.

Utan for thread win

utan wrote:RE: The OP question:

Yes, of course Obama can win the next US Presidential election.

If at the time of the election most people are better off than they were 4 years ago and the economy is all better, he will have a good chance at reelection.

However, if people are still out of work at that time, he can kiss the job goodbye.

They don't even have to be better off, they just have to think they're better off. American sheeeeple...

Frazzled wrote:
When Khadaffy was a threat we dealt with him mob style and took out his kid.

Which was later revealed to have done pretty much SFA with regards to actually stopping his terrorist support, didn't with regards to the IRA anyway.

Obama is a re incarnation of JFK from an alernate universe. We need another Tricky Dick now.

G

I think I'm just going to vote for whichever candidate will bring about the zombie apocalypse from now on.

dogma wrote:

BloodofOrks wrote:
All things considered, Rice was better then Rumsfeld, but who isn't?

Rice and Rumsfeld have never held the same office.

.

I never said they did, so there's no problem then.

BloodofOrks wrote:
I never said they did, so there's no problem then.

Then why compare them? Is this some kind of logic problem?

There are 5 members of the Bush administration: Rice, Rummy, Dick, Wolfy, and Powell
They all might occupy a set potential positions along a hierarchy of quality.
They are arranged as follows:
Rice is better than Rummy
Rummy is better than Dick
Wolfy cannot be between Rummy and Dick, or Rice and Rummy
Powell must always be best.

In what order might the members of the Bush administration be arranged, from best to worst?

Wow, I really have to justify my personal opinion of public figures? You know what? I'm not going to bother. You seem to be itching to start a fight so I'm backing off. Have fun flame baiting other people.

Um, yeah. That's what discussion is about.

Also, when did flame baiting become synonymous with calling people out on poor statements?

Powell
Rice
Rummy
Dick
Wolfy

Right?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Powell
Rice
Rummy
Dick
Wolfy

Right?

Wrong...

Rice
Powell
Wolfy
Rummy
Dick

Gah, how did you miss that!?!