• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Well that didn't take long.

8

89DeaconMike

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
887
Reaction score
57
I guess that last speech didn't work. I guess he will try something else.

http://www.wxii12.com/news/national...ants/-/9677834/20338654/-/o9l9g5/-/index.html

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...-drone-strike-security-officials-say#comments

"U.S. President Barack Obama had made commitment that drone strikes would be carried in consultation with the newly elected government of Pakistan," she said, quoting Khan. "However the president didn't fulfill his commitment and conducted drone attack the day when the new government was taking its oath of office."

Apparently they are still people who believe what he says.
 
Last edited:

Last week, Obama discussed drone strikes when he laid out his counterterrorism stance in a speech. He said they must be used with more temperance and caution, but they remain a necessary tool to take on terrorists.

"It is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars," Obama said. "As commander in chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties."

sounds like he's doing what he said

edit after the OP edited to add the 2nd article and quote

my question is, shouldn't neo-cons like the OP prefer taking the fight to the terrorists?
 
Last edited:
DeacHawk said:

Last week, Obama discussed drone strikes when he laid out his counterterrorism stance in a speech. He said they must be used with more temperance and caution, but they remain a necessary tool to take on terrorists.

"It is a hard fact that U.S. strikes have resulted in civilian casualties, a risk that exists in all wars," Obama said. "As commander in chief, I must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies against the alternatives. To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more civilian casualties."

sounds like he's doing what he said

edit after the OP edited to add the 2nd article and quote

my question is, shouldn't neo-cons like the OP prefer taking the fight to the terrorists?
Click to expand...

If Obama fights terrorists, it must be wrong because, well, Obama is doing it.
 
We don't tell Pakistan our plans for a reason.
 
Because Obama is POTUS,89 thinks we should have left OBL alone...you know like W did.
 
RJKarl said:
Because Obama is POTUS,89 thinks we should have left OBL alone...you know like W did.
Click to expand...

How is the Its a Small World ride today. (That was Clinton BTW)

I didnt say i had a problem with it. I just always think its entertaining to compare what Obama says to what he actually does or what actually happened.
 
What he did was act and it led to the death of OBL. Compare that to W letting OBL go at Tora Bora. Compare that to seven years and not getting him or many of his top guys.

The reality is Obama did get most of the leaders of AQ. He said he would and he did.

W gave up and lied to start a war of choice. That's the worst thing any POTUS can ever do. The most solemn trust a POTUS has is not to send our heroes to die based on lies. W did that.
 
Good news-credit Obama
Bad news-blame Bush
Praise Obama-brilliant, open-minded
Criticize Obama-Racist
 
WFFaithful said:
If Obama fights terrorists, it must be wrong because, well, Obama is doing it.
Click to expand...

If Obama fights terrorists it must be right because, well, Obama is doing it. I personally don't have a huge issue with drone usage (when American citizens aren't involved), but lets not act as though the Obama hypocrisy doesn't float full speed to the left as well as to the right.
 
Good for Obama for taking out more Taliban leaders!

But why would he make a commitment like that if he had no intention of keeping it? Why not just say nothing at all?
 
Wrangor said:
If Obama fights terrorists it must be right because, well, Obama is doing it. I personally don't have a huge issue with drone usage (when American citizens aren't involved), but lets not act as though the Obama hypocrisy doesn't float full speed to the left as well as to the right.
Click to expand...

I personally think the drones are horrible and will come back to haunt us. Many GOP congressmen have said they will not even vote for things they agree with because of Obama.
 
WFFaithful said:
I personally think the drones are horrible and will come back to haunt us. Many GOP congressmen have said they will not even vote for things they agree with because of Obama.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that there are Republican obstructionists, but there are a whole bunch of 'tingleupmyleg' Democrats (or Liberal pundits) that are just as bad the other way. I don't see how any Democrats really roll with the idea of Drones. I can guarantee you if 'W' was droning the heck out of the rest of the world the liberal nation would be up in arms. Instead the worst you here is an off comment about not being comfortable with them.

To me it is pretty obvious that the hypocrisy (not necessarily pointing you out, just in general) rolls both ways.
 
Shorty said:
Good for Obama for taking out more Taliban leaders!

But why would he make a commitment like that if he had no intention of keeping it? Why not just say nothing at all?
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that he was talking about drone strikes outside of the Afghan war theater. The goverment considers Pakistan part of that theater. Obama was referring to strikes in Somalia, Yemen, etc.
 
MysteryMen said:
I'm pretty sure that he was talking about drone strikes outside of the Afghan war theater. The goverment considers Pakistan part of that theater. Obama was referring to strikes in Somalia, Yemen, etc.
Click to expand...


"U.S. President Barack Obama had made commitment that drone strikes would be carried in consultation with the newly elected government of Pakistan,"

Why would he consult with the Pakistani government about drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen?
 
Shorty said:
Good for Obama for taking out more Taliban leaders!

But why would he make a commitment like that if he had no intention of keeping it? Why not just say nothing at all?
Click to expand...

Listen to what he said. He's morphing it into a military option (which has oversight) versus a CIA action, which have much less.
 
Shorty said:
"U.S. President Barack Obama had made commitment that drone strikes would be carried in consultation with the newly elected government of Pakistan,"

Why would he consult with the Pakistani government about drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Although that's a Pakistani official saying that Obama said that. Don't think Obama said anything about that in his speech last Thursday, so who knows what the actual truth is.

One of the main points of his speech was ending the CIA drone program in Yemen, Somalia, etc. and transferring that to the Pentagon. The Pentagon is already running the drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan since that's considered the theater for the Afghan war.
 
Shorty said:
Good for Obama for taking out more Taliban leaders!

But why would he make a commitment like that if he had no intention of keeping it? Why not just say nothing at all?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Obviously that whole "foreign policy" speech was nothing more than an attempt to distract from all of his growing problems. (Same thing when he went on another date with CC). Kind of like how Clinton would bomb a milk factory every time Monica was on TV.
 
RJKarl said:
What he did was act and it led to the death of OBL. Compare that to W letting OBL go at Tora Bora. Compare that to seven years and not getting him or many of his top guys.

The reality is Obama did get most of the leaders of AQ. He said he would and he did.

W gave up and lied to start a war of choice. That's the worst thing any POTUS can ever do. The most solemn trust a POTUS has is not to send our heroes to die based on lies. W did that.
Click to expand...

So let me understand RJ logic. Obama is a hero because Hillary and Panetta made him take out Bin Laden. W was wrong to invade Iraq but should have invaded Pakistan(who have nuclear weapons last time I checked). And Clinton gets a pass even though he had Bin Laden in the gun sights about a hundred times. Got it.
 
There is so much factually wrong in this post that you have outdone yourself...which isn't easy.
 
89DeaconMike said:
So let me understand RJ logic. Obama is a hero because Hillary and Panetta made him take out Bin Laden. W was wrong to invade Iraq but should have invaded Pakistan(who have nuclear weapons last time I checked). And Clinton gets a pass even though he had Bin Laden in the gun sights about a hundred times. Got it.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Half the room was opposed to the operation that got OBL.

Obama didn't have to invade Pakistan to get OBL. The military was listening to OBL on OBL's walkie talkies at Tora Bora and refused to send in people to get him. This is indisputable.

There wouldn't have been an Iraq War had OBL been killed at Tora Bora. That's why he wasn't killed. W killed over 4000 US heroes and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, because he wouldn't kill one terrorist.

As to your BS about Bill Clinton. the main time he "had OBL in his sights" it is well documented that Bush 41 AG Dick Thornburgh told Clinton there wasn't enough evidence to try him at that date.

But agani debka, Rush and Red States tell you lies that you believe to justify your hatred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top