OT: Obama is dumber than a box of rocks

[Casca]

[quote=toots]Enlighten me more. I’m listening.

ps someone please tell me why right-wingers keep saying liberals are not patriotic? Because we hate this war? My husband and I and all our friends are liberal, and we all love our country.[/quote]

No, you’re taunting, big difference. McCain wasn’t the subject here, nor were the twisted motives of liberals. I’m sorry that you and all of your friends are liberals. You travel in a very narrow universe.

[gandalf]

Chessmaster Allan, the ‘power’ behind #2 is really quite liberating, and opens up a whole range of options.

September 30, the USA sets an ultimatum, say one year, for the delivery of Bin Laden and other AQ operatives. We pass something along these lines as a resolution in the United Nations. This would have been achievable back in the September 2001. Apprehending OBL for the “Crimes of 9/11″ becomes International Law, so to speak.

Six months later, USA: To date, the perpetrators of 9/11 haven’t been located and extradited for prosecution. Countries may be unable or unwilling to police their own territory. In such instances, we will assist these governments by sending forces through regions where we have intelligence regarding AQ. We expect the cooperation of these governments in the enforcement of International Law.”

Invade Afghanistan. Destroy the Taliban. Invade Western Pakistan. Leave troops in both.

Bomb the shit out of Iraq again. Just for the hell of it. Shock-and-awe, just don’t occupy.

Occupy Saudi Arabia under ‘peaceful terms’. Place the Saudi Royals under house arrest. Confiscate the entire assets of the Kingdom of Saud. Leave troops in country.

The hijackers were Saudi, remember? Soon as we have AQ, we’ll draw our forces down, withdraw from country.

That would push some fucking buttons, huh? More targeted but also more morally-justifiable. Focus on enforcement of international law, apprehension of AQ. Definitely would have led to war and conflict, but would we be in a better strategic position?

Certainly here at home we wouldn’t be dealing with the Iraq WMD lies, republican divide-and-conquer patriotism litmus-test bullshit. We might have been a country united in pursuit of our enemies. We might even be driving electric cars by now, with no concern over Iran or Hormuz…

Hey now! I don’t know for sure how this would have played out. I’m just throwing it out there for consideration… 😉

[gandalf]

Chessmaster Allan, the ‘power’ behind #2 is really quite liberating, and opens up a whole range of options.

September 30, the USA sets an ultimatum, say one year, for the delivery of Bin Laden and other AQ operatives. We pass something along these lines as a resolution in the United Nations. This would have been achievable back in the September 2001. Apprehending OBL for the “Crimes of 9/11″ becomes International Law, so to speak.

Six months later, USA: To date, the perpetrators of 9/11 haven’t been located and extradited for prosecution. Countries may be unable or unwilling to police their own territory. In such instances, we will assist these governments by sending forces through regions where we have intelligence regarding AQ. We expect the cooperation of these governments in the enforcement of International Law.”

Invade Afghanistan. Destroy the Taliban. Invade Western Pakistan. Leave troops in both.

Bomb the shit out of Iraq again. Just for the hell of it. Shock-and-awe, just don’t occupy.

Occupy Saudi Arabia under ‘peaceful terms’. Place the Saudi Royals under house arrest. Confiscate the entire assets of the Kingdom of Saud. Leave troops in country.

The hijackers were Saudi, remember? Soon as we have AQ, we’ll draw our forces down, withdraw from country.

That would push some fucking buttons, huh? More targeted but also more morally-justifiable. Focus on enforcement of international law, apprehension of AQ. Definitely would have led to war and conflict, but would we be in a better strategic position?

Certainly here at home we wouldn’t be dealing with the Iraq WMD lies, republican divide-and-conquer patriotism litmus-test bullshit. We might have been a country united in pursuit of our enemies. We might even be driving electric cars by now, with no concern over Iran or Hormuz…

Hey now! I don’t know for sure how this would have played out. I’m just throwing it out there for consideration… 😉

[gandalf]

Chessmaster Allan, the ‘power’ behind #2 is really quite liberating, and opens up a whole range of options.

September 30, the USA sets an ultimatum, say one year, for the delivery of Bin Laden and other AQ operatives. We pass something along these lines as a resolution in the United Nations. This would have been achievable back in the September 2001. Apprehending OBL for the “Crimes of 9/11″ becomes International Law, so to speak.

Six months later, USA: To date, the perpetrators of 9/11 haven’t been located and extradited for prosecution. Countries may be unable or unwilling to police their own territory. In such instances, we will assist these governments by sending forces through regions where we have intelligence regarding AQ. We expect the cooperation of these governments in the enforcement of International Law.”

Invade Afghanistan. Destroy the Taliban. Invade Western Pakistan. Leave troops in both.

Bomb the shit out of Iraq again. Just for the hell of it. Shock-and-awe, just don’t occupy.

Occupy Saudi Arabia under ‘peaceful terms’. Place the Saudi Royals under house arrest. Confiscate the entire assets of the Kingdom of Saud. Leave troops in country.

The hijackers were Saudi, remember? Soon as we have AQ, we’ll draw our forces down, withdraw from country.

That would push some fucking buttons, huh? More targeted but also more morally-justifiable. Focus on enforcement of international law, apprehension of AQ. Definitely would have led to war and conflict, but would we be in a better strategic position?

Certainly here at home we wouldn’t be dealing with the Iraq WMD lies, republican divide-and-conquer patriotism litmus-test bullshit. We might have been a country united in pursuit of our enemies. We might even be driving electric cars by now, with no concern over Iran or Hormuz…

Hey now! I don’t know for sure how this would have played out. I’m just throwing it out there for consideration… 😉

[gandalf]

Chessmaster Allan, the ‘power’ behind #2 is really quite liberating, and opens up a whole range of options.

September 30, the USA sets an ultimatum, say one year, for the delivery of Bin Laden and other AQ operatives. We pass something along these lines as a resolution in the United Nations. This would have been achievable back in the September 2001. Apprehending OBL for the “Crimes of 9/11″ becomes International Law, so to speak.

Six months later, USA: To date, the perpetrators of 9/11 haven’t been located and extradited for prosecution. Countries may be unable or unwilling to police their own territory. In such instances, we will assist these governments by sending forces through regions where we have intelligence regarding AQ. We expect the cooperation of these governments in the enforcement of International Law.”

Invade Afghanistan. Destroy the Taliban. Invade Western Pakistan. Leave troops in both.

Bomb the shit out of Iraq again. Just for the hell of it. Shock-and-awe, just don’t occupy.

Occupy Saudi Arabia under ‘peaceful terms’. Place the Saudi Royals under house arrest. Confiscate the entire assets of the Kingdom of Saud. Leave troops in country.

The hijackers were Saudi, remember? Soon as we have AQ, we’ll draw our forces down, withdraw from country.

That would push some fucking buttons, huh? More targeted but also more morally-justifiable. Focus on enforcement of international law, apprehension of AQ. Definitely would have led to war and conflict, but would we be in a better strategic position?

Certainly here at home we wouldn’t be dealing with the Iraq WMD lies, republican divide-and-conquer patriotism litmus-test bullshit. We might have been a country united in pursuit of our enemies. We might even be driving electric cars by now, with no concern over Iran or Hormuz…

Hey now! I don’t know for sure how this would have played out. I’m just throwing it out there for consideration… 😉

[gandalf]

Chessmaster Allan, the ‘power’ behind #2 is really quite liberating, and opens up a whole range of options.

September 30, the USA sets an ultimatum, say one year, for the delivery of Bin Laden and other AQ operatives. We pass something along these lines as a resolution in the United Nations. This would have been achievable back in the September 2001. Apprehending OBL for the “Crimes of 9/11″ becomes International Law, so to speak.

Six months later, USA: To date, the perpetrators of 9/11 haven’t been located and extradited for prosecution. Countries may be unable or unwilling to police their own territory. In such instances, we will assist these governments by sending forces through regions where we have intelligence regarding AQ. We expect the cooperation of these governments in the enforcement of International Law.”

Invade Afghanistan. Destroy the Taliban. Invade Western Pakistan. Leave troops in both.

Bomb the shit out of Iraq again. Just for the hell of it. Shock-and-awe, just don’t occupy.

Occupy Saudi Arabia under ‘peaceful terms’. Place the Saudi Royals under house arrest. Confiscate the entire assets of the Kingdom of Saud. Leave troops in country.

The hijackers were Saudi, remember? Soon as we have AQ, we’ll draw our forces down, withdraw from country.

That would push some fucking buttons, huh? More targeted but also more morally-justifiable. Focus on enforcement of international law, apprehension of AQ. Definitely would have led to war and conflict, but would we be in a better strategic position?

Certainly here at home we wouldn’t be dealing with the Iraq WMD lies, republican divide-and-conquer patriotism litmus-test bullshit. We might have been a country united in pursuit of our enemies. We might even be driving electric cars by now, with no concern over Iran or Hormuz…

Hey now! I don’t know for sure how this would have played out. I’m just throwing it out there for consideration… 😉

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Jesus. When you go over the top, you really go over the top! You don’t feel that occupying Saudi would have created the world’s biggest shitstorm in the Arab world? I mentioned Mecca and Medina for an extremely good reason: This is the epicenter of the Muslim world. Just imagine US troops patrolling during the Hajj in places like Mecca, Medina and Mina. Approx 2MM pilgrims descend there, from countries all over the world and you would have soldiers from The Great Satan trying to keep order.

And, make no mistake, you’d get your wish to have al-Qaeda come out and fight. The problem is that you would galvanize tens of thousands of previously moderate Arabs as well, and from 150+ countries throughout the world.

Iraq was a secular state, and Saddam was viewed with suspicion by many of his Arab neighbors, especially those that had already been invaded by or had been to war with Iraq. Not debating the reasons behind invading Iraq, simply saying that as far as triggering a response goes, invading Saudi Arabia would have created a much larger mess with far bigger shockwaves and not just in the Arab world. I would imagine Russia and China would have gone batshit, as would Iran, and all with the perfectly legitimate claim that we hijacked Saudi for the oil.

I do agree that we need to focus on al-Qaeda, but I think there might be a better way than knee dropping Saudi Arabia. Something needs to be done with Saudi, and Egypt, but I don’t think this is it.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]toots: I think there needs to be a distinction between liberals and left-wingers. I think the word “liberal” is a good word, and not a pejorative, but I loathe left-wingers.

As I’m sure gandalf would be the first to tell you, I am extremely conservative, in the old school Goldwater Republican camp. I would never accuse a liberal of hating their country, but would accuse a left-winger of doing so.

It is much akin to Susan Sontag opining after 9/11 that we “deserved” it. While I feel that our foreign policy in the Middle East has run between complete ignorance and ineptitude, claiming that Osama bin Laden was justified in his actions is beyond the pale and contemptible.

I don’t hold that we are above criticism. To the contrary, I believe that we need to change our approach in that part of the world and that the past 50 years have shown significant errors in our relationships and our strategies. Support for countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to come back to haunt us, and we need to see that part of the world in a whole new way.

All of that being said, however, I don’t feel that either of the candidates is a good choice for that particular job. I have McCain on one hand openly advocating the bombing of Iran and Obama on the other completely missing the point as to why Iran should not have The Bomb.
[/quote]

Again, irritated that you do not do these wonder posts more often.
This leads me to other questions (you are good at doing that).
1:
I consider myself a member of the liberal left. I don’t consider myself a member of the radical left nor do I consider myself particularly reactionary. But clearly, with my opinions on social programs and economics, I am generally to the left of the current government in the US. What about leftism do you find contemptible? Perhaps a better question would be, what do you see as left? It is a polysemous term.

2:
Why do you find Iran dangerous? They have a weak president, a strong legislature, and a super-strong judiciary. The only person that seems to noisily chant about the US and Israel is the weak president. Is the president the problem or are prior actions indicative of current intent or what exactly?
I don’t necessarily disagree but the silliness of my debate with Surveyor made me think about Iran and what the real danger there is. It really feels like we are just hating on a grudge (kind of like Cuba).
Sound off.
Anyone with an actual opinion, I would be interested in hearing it. If you are just a hater spouting vitriol, then not so much.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]toots: I think there needs to be a distinction between liberals and left-wingers. I think the word “liberal” is a good word, and not a pejorative, but I loathe left-wingers.

As I’m sure gandalf would be the first to tell you, I am extremely conservative, in the old school Goldwater Republican camp. I would never accuse a liberal of hating their country, but would accuse a left-winger of doing so.

It is much akin to Susan Sontag opining after 9/11 that we “deserved” it. While I feel that our foreign policy in the Middle East has run between complete ignorance and ineptitude, claiming that Osama bin Laden was justified in his actions is beyond the pale and contemptible.

I don’t hold that we are above criticism. To the contrary, I believe that we need to change our approach in that part of the world and that the past 50 years have shown significant errors in our relationships and our strategies. Support for countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to come back to haunt us, and we need to see that part of the world in a whole new way.

All of that being said, however, I don’t feel that either of the candidates is a good choice for that particular job. I have McCain on one hand openly advocating the bombing of Iran and Obama on the other completely missing the point as to why Iran should not have The Bomb.
[/quote]

Again, irritated that you do not do these wonder posts more often.
This leads me to other questions (you are good at doing that).
1:
I consider myself a member of the liberal left. I don’t consider myself a member of the radical left nor do I consider myself particularly reactionary. But clearly, with my opinions on social programs and economics, I am generally to the left of the current government in the US. What about leftism do you find contemptible? Perhaps a better question would be, what do you see as left? It is a polysemous term.

2:
Why do you find Iran dangerous? They have a weak president, a strong legislature, and a super-strong judiciary. The only person that seems to noisily chant about the US and Israel is the weak president. Is the president the problem or are prior actions indicative of current intent or what exactly?
I don’t necessarily disagree but the silliness of my debate with Surveyor made me think about Iran and what the real danger there is. It really feels like we are just hating on a grudge (kind of like Cuba).
Sound off.
Anyone with an actual opinion, I would be interested in hearing it. If you are just a hater spouting vitriol, then not so much.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]toots: I think there needs to be a distinction between liberals and left-wingers. I think the word “liberal” is a good word, and not a pejorative, but I loathe left-wingers.

As I’m sure gandalf would be the first to tell you, I am extremely conservative, in the old school Goldwater Republican camp. I would never accuse a liberal of hating their country, but would accuse a left-winger of doing so.

It is much akin to Susan Sontag opining after 9/11 that we “deserved” it. While I feel that our foreign policy in the Middle East has run between complete ignorance and ineptitude, claiming that Osama bin Laden was justified in his actions is beyond the pale and contemptible.

I don’t hold that we are above criticism. To the contrary, I believe that we need to change our approach in that part of the world and that the past 50 years have shown significant errors in our relationships and our strategies. Support for countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to come back to haunt us, and we need to see that part of the world in a whole new way.

All of that being said, however, I don’t feel that either of the candidates is a good choice for that particular job. I have McCain on one hand openly advocating the bombing of Iran and Obama on the other completely missing the point as to why Iran should not have The Bomb.
[/quote]

Again, irritated that you do not do these wonder posts more often.
This leads me to other questions (you are good at doing that).
1:
I consider myself a member of the liberal left. I don’t consider myself a member of the radical left nor do I consider myself particularly reactionary. But clearly, with my opinions on social programs and economics, I am generally to the left of the current government in the US. What about leftism do you find contemptible? Perhaps a better question would be, what do you see as left? It is a polysemous term.

2:
Why do you find Iran dangerous? They have a weak president, a strong legislature, and a super-strong judiciary. The only person that seems to noisily chant about the US and Israel is the weak president. Is the president the problem or are prior actions indicative of current intent or what exactly?
I don’t necessarily disagree but the silliness of my debate with Surveyor made me think about Iran and what the real danger there is. It really feels like we are just hating on a grudge (kind of like Cuba).
Sound off.
Anyone with an actual opinion, I would be interested in hearing it. If you are just a hater spouting vitriol, then not so much.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]toots: I think there needs to be a distinction between liberals and left-wingers. I think the word “liberal” is a good word, and not a pejorative, but I loathe left-wingers.

As I’m sure gandalf would be the first to tell you, I am extremely conservative, in the old school Goldwater Republican camp. I would never accuse a liberal of hating their country, but would accuse a left-winger of doing so.

It is much akin to Susan Sontag opining after 9/11 that we “deserved” it. While I feel that our foreign policy in the Middle East has run between complete ignorance and ineptitude, claiming that Osama bin Laden was justified in his actions is beyond the pale and contemptible.

I don’t hold that we are above criticism. To the contrary, I believe that we need to change our approach in that part of the world and that the past 50 years have shown significant errors in our relationships and our strategies. Support for countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to come back to haunt us, and we need to see that part of the world in a whole new way.

All of that being said, however, I don’t feel that either of the candidates is a good choice for that particular job. I have McCain on one hand openly advocating the bombing of Iran and Obama on the other completely missing the point as to why Iran should not have The Bomb.
[/quote]

Again, irritated that you do not do these wonder posts more often.
This leads me to other questions (you are good at doing that).
1:
I consider myself a member of the liberal left. I don’t consider myself a member of the radical left nor do I consider myself particularly reactionary. But clearly, with my opinions on social programs and economics, I am generally to the left of the current government in the US. What about leftism do you find contemptible? Perhaps a better question would be, what do you see as left? It is a polysemous term.

2:
Why do you find Iran dangerous? They have a weak president, a strong legislature, and a super-strong judiciary. The only person that seems to noisily chant about the US and Israel is the weak president. Is the president the problem or are prior actions indicative of current intent or what exactly?
I don’t necessarily disagree but the silliness of my debate with Surveyor made me think about Iran and what the real danger there is. It really feels like we are just hating on a grudge (kind of like Cuba).
Sound off.
Anyone with an actual opinion, I would be interested in hearing it. If you are just a hater spouting vitriol, then not so much.

[Author]

Posts