It's all about Pakistan now

[kj]

August West wrote:
[quote=kj]
People have been saying for quite some time that violence is counter-productive in the middle-east .

Who has been saying that the assassination of bin Laden would be counter productive? Please cite the individuals who have said this.
I guess if the assassination of OBL is not considered violence in your book, no one has. kj.

[Grace62]

billb wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=billb]

fortunately the mideast is slowly attritioning the oppressive autocratic regimes - from whence the support for extremism thrives

true


( the brainwashed call this Bush's foreign policy failures as if repeating it often enough will make it so)

what? Bush propped up Mubarak and the others...Your comment makes no sense.

well, I'm so glad there's nothing more to the whole of the mideast than mubarak.

I never mentioned Mubarak - probably why you can't make sense of it.
So, overthrowing oppressive regimes in the Middle East..right now..has nothing to do with Egypt? OK then.

[Carnos Jax]

kj wrote:
[quote=Carnos Jax]
kj, brotha, you're making up stuff now...don't fall to Dak's level. This is all really simple. Obama saw a very specific opportunity and he took it, that's a far cry from having a belligerent attitude like GW did. You might even have a fringe few that may be confused, but that doesn't apply to most Democrats. Applying the same logic then you can say Republicans are racist pricks (among other extrapolations).

I consider this "name calling", which is frankly below Dakota's level, at least most of the time. If you think I've made something up, just make your case. I don't think I've "made up" anything. I think the reactions that people have had are really interesting. That's all. kj.
Making things up, portraying things falsly, yes that's what it appears to me that you're doing. It seems you're trying to convey the impression that Democrats are generally torn somehow, or holding an irrational position, when in my previous I explained why that's false. To say that's name calling is embellishing things, kinda like what you've been doing in this thread. Don't try to dramatize it, I'm not trying to be disrespectful towards you. BTW, name calling is below Dakota's level?

[Grace62]

kj wrote:
>>I have also never claimed that Bush's foreign policy was responsible for the Kashmir incident.

You actually did by posting an article that supposedly supported your claims. You've got the rest wrong, but not because I wrote it incorrectly, but because you read it incorrectly. kj.

The "claim," which you questioned, was whether or not the number of incidents of international terrorism increased or decreased post-9/11. You questioned that, and I posted something showing that the number went up.
As for the rest, if you want to explain yourself further, go ahead.
We're always to happy to clear up misunderstandings.

[August West]

kj wrote:
This is the name of the article, "Chris Hedges Speaks on Osama bin Laden’s Death". I think we all know who is being credited with finally getting him. It is interesting he doesn't ever mention Obama's name though. I bet he's a democrat!

I think you have completely missed the tenor of the article. From what little I know of journalism, I would defer to Gutenberg on this, many times a writer does not even title their piece, but an editor does. This article has not one thing to do with crediting anyone "with finally getting him," it is a lament on much greater issues. Perhaps you should ask your friend to explain it to you, if indeed he would speak politics with you.

Who has been saying that the assassination of bin Laden would be counter productive? Please cite the individuals who have said this.

I'll note that you are unable to answer this question.

[kj]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=kj]


How does Obama's action begin to establish a different approach? It doesn't. Status quo. kj.

As soon President Obama preemptively and unilaterally invades and occupies another country that of course has not attacked us, has no clear exit strategy, and uses falsified information to convince the country that he's doing the right thing, then you can feel free to say that he has the same foreign policy approach as Pres. Bush. Until then? No.
I guess if the slogan, "Barack Obama: Bad, but not as bad as Bush", sounds good to you, that makes sense. Or "Barack Obama: Better than the worst ever." kj.

[Grace62]

So kj....your preference is that OBL had been taken alive, and then put on trial? Make your case for that then.

[kj]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=kj]
>>I have also never claimed that Bush's foreign policy was responsible for the Kashmir incident.

You actually did by posting an article that supposedly supported your claims. You've got the rest wrong, but not because I wrote it incorrectly, but because you read it incorrectly. kj.

The "claim," which you questioned, was whether or not the number of incidents of international terrorism increased or decreased post-9/11. You questioned that, and I posted something showing that the number went up.
As for the rest, if you want to explain yourself further, go ahead.
We're always to happy to clear up misunderstandings.
If you look back, the number that went up after Bush's response included events like the Kashmir incident, etc. , that to my knowledge had nothing to do with his foreign policy. It didn't support your assertion, at all, unless you can show he had some hand in causing them. kj.

[kj]

Grace62 wrote:
So kj....your preference is that OBL had been taken alive, and then put on trial? Make your case for that then.

I would if that was my preference. I don't think that was ever my point. kj.

[Pam]

Lol! The right really cannot stand this! The statements made in this thread, other threads, even on other sites shows the tremendous struggle to find a chink in this event. But the more they try the more absurd and irrational it gets.