Hear David Boze every weekday at 6am on 770 KTTH
 David Boze
Get David's Books
The Little Red Book of Obamunism: Quotations from The One
It's the must-have election resource of 2012! It's a pocket-sized collection that reveals not just what the president says, but what he means!
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample

Kumar Joe, The Singing Crow
Kumar Joe, the Singing Crow is the tale of a little crow who was born with a heart for music, but not a voice for it.
Buy it now on Amazon.com
Look inside: Read a sample



Would Romney have killed Osama Bin Laden?

April 27, 2012 @ 12:51 pm

The latest Obama ad questions whether Romney would have had the guts to pull the trigger on the Bin Laden operation. Bill Clinton narrates and describes the operation as one of those decisions almost no one else could make the call on.

Let's set aside the interesting part of the story which is that it was Bush-era measures that gained the intelligence needed to find out where Bin Laden was in this long-term operation (so much for the "Bush has forgotten Bin Laden" story line we were supposed to believe). I think even Jimmy Carter would have approved that operation.

I am glad Obama did it. It happened on his watch so he deserves credit for it. But other than Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, I don't know there's a major candidate of the last 8 years that I can't imagine making that call.

 

SIDE NOTE: Could having Clinton front and center be a trial run to see if adding Hillary to the ticket would be workable?

More David Boze

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (54)


  • Add A Comment

  • Habakkuk 1:9 wrote...
    Kucinich
    April 27, 2012 12:25 pm
    Wow. You called Dennis Kucinich a major candidate. What do Kucinich and Jimmy Carter have in common? They both saw UFOs. That would make for a good ad if Kucinich decides to run in Washington for Congress. Or for dogcatcher, for that matter.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Proper Logical Debate wrote...
    Kill or capture?
    April 27, 2012 12:30 pm
    For Obama the advantages of killing are that most are happy he's gone and that you don't have all those questions of where to put him, or how to try him. I believe that those, especially the second, made killing the obvious choice for Obama. As far as Romney, we don't parade fallen kings around like the romans and others. I wouldn't see any variation of that as a reason. If Romney wanted just revenge then I could see him killing OBL. I'm sure that the left wing reporters would have seen OBL in the news as a political stunt to help a Romney re-election. Even though these might apply to Obama, the hard questions, IMHO, still would get the nod (or the thumbs down as the case may be).
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Not a candidate but the office holder GWB
    April 27, 2012 1:11 pm
    Put himself in a position that he was NOT required to make that call. He wasn't looking for OBL.Of course the left wing media would call it a great victory for the USA if Romney had made the call but "IF" is the key word.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    doesn't much matter - bin Laden IS dead
    April 27, 2012 1:38 pm
    Interesting this ad is coming out NOW, a full 6 months before the election. I suppose Obama might also run it later, but should be largely ignored by then. .. Was this a commitment by a half-hearted Bill Clinton ? ................................. But what ifs are only that. Speculation. .. But I do think you are only half right on Jimmy Carter. He would have authorized the mission, but then screwed it up royally.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fins2theleft wrote...
    Are you dumb enough to think ...
    April 27, 2012 3:12 pm
    ... that the President, as commander-in-chief actually plans out the logistics of military operations after authorizing them? Carter pulled the trigger on rescuing the hostages in Iran and the SPECIAL TEAMS SCREWED IT UP. Obama pulled the trigger on the bin Laden kill and the SPECIAL TEAMS PULLED IT OFF. Once the President provides authorization all he does after that is WAIT for the news.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    agreed, you're right, BUT.......................
    April 27, 2012 6:56 pm
    Obama get credit and Carter gets the shaft. CIC is responsible no matter what happens. If you are saying that Carter is blameless, then no kudos for Obama.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Seems it Was More than Just Giving Authorization
    April 29, 2012 10:30 am
    WASHINGTON — President Obama insisted that the assault force hunting down Osama bin Laden last week be large enough to fight its way out of Pakistan if confronted by hostile local police officers and troops, senior administration and military officials said Monday.

    .. .. About 10 days before the raid, Mr. Obama reviewed the plans and pressed his commanders as to whether they were taking along enough forces to fight their way out if the Pakistanis arrived on the scene and tried to interfere with the operation.

    .. .. That resulted in the decision to send two more helicopters carrying additional troops. These followed the two lead Black Hawk helicopters that carried the actual assault team. While there was no confrontation with the Pakistanis, one of those backup helicopters was ultimately brought in to the scene of the raid when a Black Hawk was damaged while making a hard landing.

    Sounds to me like he was knee deep in the decision process and was willing to fight it out with Pakistan.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Anton wrote...
    ron p.
    April 27, 2012 1:48 pm
    Interesting timing indeed...being close to the one year anniversary of killing bin Laden and all.

    I love how conservatives just have to somehow tie W. Bush's name to this event. Sorry, this had next to nothing to do with Bush. This was all Obama.

    Let me get this straight... The collapsed economy is totally Obama's fault and all the liberals want to do is blame Bush.... but Osama bin Laden was a joint effort equally between Bush's strong effort and merely put into play by Obama?.... really? Is that your story?....

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kata wrote...
    All things being equal?
    April 27, 2012 2:15 pm
    I think the only thing different would have been the press coverage.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    no Bush fan, me
    April 27, 2012 5:21 pm
    He was in over his head, too. .. ......... About the only times I refer to W is when Obama or other liberals keep blaming him for our problems TODAY3 1/4 years already after Obama was installed. Bush caused enough problems on his own, but he's gone, now. Gone. ....................... PS: Until your post, Anton, the ONLY other use of 'Bush' was by David Boze.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Check Your History Dave
    April 27, 2012 2:45 pm
    It was on Bush's watch the Bin Laden made his escape due to the lack of balls to go in after him in Tora Bora when we had him cornered. They outsourced it to the Afghans who fight when the want to anf for whom they want to depending on how the winds blow. Read the books on it. Utter tactical failure. Then we ratcheted back so we could go invade Iraq. Fail #2.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    "Would Romney have killed Osama Bin Laden?"
    April 27, 2012 3:26 pm
    You bet, with his bare hands! (and liberal applications of hair gel)

    But not before strapping him to the roof of his car and making him talk. (It was quickly decided that 10 minutes inside the car during Romney family vacation would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.)

    So Dave, I have a hypothetical for you. Say an Israeli agent kills someone in Iran and then comes to Seattle to lay low.

    Is Iran then justified in violating our sovereignty without permission and attacking a neighborhood in Ballard to kill him?

    Judging by your cheap shot at Paul, your answer appears to be YES. Maybe you ought to reason through a position a little before you bash it eh?

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Roomtemp
    April 27, 2012 4:37 pm
    There you go with your hypothetical (that I agree with Paul on) but you Libertarians still are 90% nutty.You fail to take into account that the State of Israel and the good old US of A can do anything to anybody because the Jews are Gods chosen people and God is on our (uSAs)side.(remember Christians were astute enough to honor the true God while the Muslims are backing some phony God dude
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    April 28, 2012 1:58 pm

    It astonishes me that you think anyone would care one iota whether Iran would be "justified" if it ever attacked America. As if any nation in the history of the world has ever stopped to ponder whether a hostile foreign incursion was "justified." Who would declare it so? The Hague?

    Foreign nations have no "right" to be safe from American military strikes, just like America has no "right" to be safe from foreign military strikes. That's why the nations of the world have militaries. So they can defend themselves from foreign nations who consider themselves justified in perpetrating acts of violence. Who's to say whether they actually *are* justified? No one. That's why America spends so much on defense: so that we don't have to whine to the world about "justification" in regards to international conflict.

    This is one of the primary reasons I'll never ever even think of voting for Ron Paul in a presidential primary. He simply doesn't understand the unvarnished brutality of the international scene. He thinks we need to respect the sovereign "right" of, for instance, Iran to develop nuclear weapons. But the reality is that no such right exists. National sovereignty isn't bequeathed from on high; it must be bought and paid for in money, sweat, and blood. And sometimes that blood must belong to the foreigners who, for whatever reason provides "justification" in their minds, want us all dead.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @Gundy...
    April 28, 2012 5:03 pm
    "It astonishes me_"

    Does rule of law apply internationally? Or is it just 'might makes right'. If so, we should get on about killing everybody else right now. We're wasting time and they're catching up. How we're different from Hitler at that point I'm not sure. But that's the end of that path. Bomb everyone into submission.

    It astonishes me that someone would think that it's ok to violate someone else's sovereignty while simultaneously expecting them to respect ours. That sounds like a great way to win friends and influence trading partners, a real trust builder.

    "_for whatever reason_"

    It's not "for whatever reason". We are constantly meddling in other countries affairs and we've been doing it for a long time now. Have you ever heard the term blowback? (It's when we mess with people and they get understandably pissed and attack us.) If we continue our current path, you can expect to hear it a lot more often.

    Here we are again, spreading the love of democracy in Syria...

    http://rt.com/news/syria-terrorism-cia-destabilization-863/

    Would you care to justify increased deficit spending to destabilize the government of Syria and tell me what business we have there? Is it worth increased tensions with Russia, who is still a genuine military power?

    "for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

    The rule holds for countries too...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    April 29, 2012 12:12 am

    "Does rule of law apply internationally," you ask? From the context, I presume you intend this question to be rhetorical. But I ask in return, what rule of what law? Each nation has its own distinct set of laws, many of which routinely come into conflict with the laws of other nations. That's the whole point of having separate nations in the first place: so that there may be diversity and decentralization in lawmaking. Otherwise, there'd be no reason for the whole world not to just go ahead and submit to U.N. rule. So the straightforward answer to your rhetorical question is "No." Morality is, by definition, universal (though disputed). The rule of any given set of laws usually isn't.

    If there's a logical progression from my statement that "foreign nations have no 'right' to be safe from American military strikes" to your hyperbolic extrapolation that "we should get on about killing everybody else right now," I'm simply not following it. There's a vast philosophical gulf between saying that foreign nations have no right to be free from American military threat (which is what I said), and saying that America has a perpetual right to attack anyone it wants (which is what you seem to think I said). My point is NOT that we shouldn't care whether or not our military strikes are justified, but rather that we shouldn't care about the opinions of the nations we strike, for the simple reason that NO nation will ever consider a foreign military strike against it to be justified, regardless of whether the strike is ACTUALLY justified. Americas leaders must be guided by principles not subject to world opinion. It's their duty to safeguard AMERICA'S national security - not to curry favor with foreign nations out of some naive dream that everyone else will just leave us alone if we stop meddling in their affairs. Yeah, that worked real well ... right up till 9/11. You wanna talk about "blowback"? The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were nothing more than "blowback" ... from our side.

    I know of no sensible leader who would ever "expect" other nations to respect the sovereignty of his nation just 'cause "it's the right thing to do." That's ludicrous. The only reason that nations have standing armies in the first place is because nations typically DON'T respect each other's sovereignty. I personally have no expectation whatsoever that foreign nations will respect American sovereignty. That's why I support the strongest military we can reasonably afford. (And no, I don't support deficit spending. But the military, for the not-insignificant reason that it's specifically provided for by the Constitution, shouldn't be the part of the federal government that gets slashed to close budget gaps.)

    If America has made a treaty with another nation, then she must honor that treaty. If America has cultivated a trusting relationship with a foreign ally, then it would be wise of her to respect the wishes of that ally. But to move from such sensible doctrines to the sweeping assertion that America, on principle, should never intervene militarily in the affairs of foreign nations ... well, it's suicidal.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @Gundy...
    April 30, 2012 4:33 pm
    "But I ask in return, what rule of what law?"

    You're right, it was rhetorical. I wasn't so much referring to any particular international regulation. It was more a reference to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' ie moral laws. I believe we should project the same values internationally that we espouse in our constitution. To do otherwise is hypocritical and dishonorable.

    "Americas leaders must be guided by principles not subject to world opinion."

    And how does funding Al-Qaeda rebels to destabilize other nations fit into those 'principles'. We did it in Libya and now we're doing it again in Syria and Iran. Does it give you a warm patriotic feeling knowing that your tax dollars are funding random rooftop snipers and roadside bombs? Not me, not in my name.

    "It's their duty to safeguard AMERICA'S national security"

    What is our national security interest in Afghanistan now that Osama is dead, cultivating poppies? How about Syria, what's our business there? You didn't answer the question that wasn't rhetorical. (I know sometimes it's hard to tell with me. I probably use rhetorical questions too often.)

    Do you feel it's worth increasing our national debt to destabilize Syria? (I don't.) Did you ever see a debate on the house floor about it. I didn't.

    "Yeah, that worked real well ... right up till 9/11."

    What? I know you well enough to know that you don't think world history started with 9-11. We (meaning the western world, not just the us.) have been occupying various places around the middle east for decades. Pretty much nonstop since the discovery of oil there.

    "The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were nothing more than "blowback" ... from our side."

    Afghanistan, OK. Osama was hiding with the taliban and that's where they hang out. Turns out he wasn't there though, oops. Anyway, now he's dead and we should leave.

    What did Iraq have to do with Al-Qaeda or Osama? Do tell.

    No, sorry but the reason we attacked Iraq is that Saddam was starting to do his oil trades in euros, and talking about moving to an analogue of Ghadaffi's gold based dinar. Both of these things were threatening to the dollar as world reserve currency. If what we did in Libya doesn't open your eyes, I don't know what will.

    Oh, and Iran... You do realize that we killed their 'George Washington' right? After decades of euro imperialism and raping their oil resources, they overcome and install an Iranian government. We start a coup, and install a fascist puppet to put them under the rule of the oil barons again. Are they supposed to love us for this?

    "I know of no sensible leader who would ever "expect" other nations to respect the sovereignty of his nation just 'cause "it's the right thing to do." That's ludicrous.

    Yet, we're right next to Canada and I don't feel threatened in the slightest. I guess I just expect them to respect our sovereignty because it's the right thing to do. Not because of any implied threat. Why is that?

    "That's why I support the strongest military we can reasonably afford."

    Me too. Now we're getting to the meat of it. Toss all the moral arguments out the window for now. When we are borrowing half of what we spend, how much can we afford. I'd say a little less than half of what we have now. You can't be serious that there aren't cuts to make in defense. We spend more than twice the rest of the world combined on military. It's high time they share the burden for their own defense. We simply cannot afford it.

    "well, it's suicidal."

    Must be one of those George Washington kinda death wishes.

    “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    April 30, 2012 5:37 pm

    "We should project the same values internationally that we espouse in our Constitution"? Really? Isn't that what Bush 43 decided he had the prerogative to do when he unilaterally transmogrified America's rationale for the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations from "We're there to protect America" to "We're there to liberate the locals"? Isn't that the reason we've both wished for an exit from those nations for so long now - because Bush started making it his business to "spread liberty" at the expense of American lives? In my belief, the only value that America has any business "projecting" on the international arena is "If you're nice to us, we'll trade with you, but if you so much as point a pop gun in our direction, we'll change your regime for you."

    You see, I agree with you that we need to clear out of both Afghanistan and Iraq, but that's different from thinking that we shouldn't have gone in to begin with. I'm glad you recognize the justice of our Afghanistan invasion (at least initially), but I'm simply not buying the line that the Bush administration lied about all the WMD they thought Saddam was hoarding. That's the real reason we went into Iraq - all other reasons, whether legitimate or illegitimate, were peripheral. And that's how I tie Iraq to 9/11. Because in 2003, no one wanted to risk allowing a powerful, terrorist-supporting, America-hating dictator to stockpile WMD. It's as simple as that. And it's now just as simple in regard to Iran.

    I really don't care whether Iran loves us or hates us, and I don't really care whether or not their feelings are America's fault. There's nothing you or I or Obama or Romney can do about their Supreme Leader's disposition toward the West. All I want is for my federal government to prevent those maniacs from obtaining the Bomb and wiping Israel off the map. That's all. Is that so hard to stomach?

    And regarding our military presence in the Middle East ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we've ever built one single base in one single foreign nation (excepting those nations we've invaded in time of war) without being asked to do so by said nation's government. That's why we're in Saudi Arabia, for instance: because our presence there benefits both us and the Saudis. Just 'cause Bin Laden didn't want us there doesn't mean we've somehow been colonizing them, for crying out loud!

    Regarding Libya and Syria, I agree with you. The Obama administration hasn't even bothered to put up the pretense that our involvement in those civil wars has anything to do with American national security on any level.

    Oh, and in the event that you're right about our "real" reasons for invading Iraq, I'd be curious as to why on earth you'd object to them. They seem pretty important.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @Gundy...
    April 30, 2012 7:27 pm
    As per usual, it sounds like our disagreements are more a matter of amount than position. For instance...

    "In my belief, the only value that America has any business "projecting" on the international arena is "If you're nice to us, we'll trade with you, but if you so much as point a pop gun in our direction, we'll change your regime for you."

    That sums it up nicely. I would only add that it's a bad idea to run around giving people reasons to pop guns in your direction.

    Iraq and WMD...

    Whatever he did have was used, buried, expired, or moved. If he'd had them at his disposal in weaponized form, he'd have used them when we invaded.

    Now we're back to the crapping in your own plate argument again. Do you think, just maybe, it was a bad idea to give WMD to someone with Saddam's personality (or anyone ftm!), no matter how much we hate the Ayatollah? When does it become cause and effect?

    "All I want is for my federal government to prevent those maniacs from obtaining the Bomb and wiping Israel off the map."

    Israel has over 300 nukes. Israel has an Army, Navy, Air Force, Spec ops, etc, etc, etc. Israel's own Prime Minister has said before our own congress that Israel is capable of defending itself. The Israeli armed forces are quite capable. I don't doubt his claim.

    "but I don't believe we've ever built one single base in one single foreign nation_"

    We do, usually we use financial coercion instead of outright violence though. The Bahrain folks aren't real happy about the 5th fleet being there at all for instance. But we prop up the oppressive regime, so we stay. You don't hear much about the violent putdowns of Arab Spring protests in Bahrain do you? Same with Saudi Arabia. We don't have to colonize anything, all we have to do is keep supporting dictators that the people there hate. We pick and choose our despots, THAT is what gets us into trouble. The correct answer is E: None of the above...

    "Regarding Libya and Syria_"

    And I'm not even talking about the non-constitutional undeclared warfare or the lack of national security reasons. (Those are bad enough, yes) The war on Ghadaffi was all about fiat currency and light sweet crude. Before less than a third of the country was taken or the bodies in the streets were cold. We installed a new central bank (euro fiat) and captured their oil fields. Go look at a chart, Libya had a gold based currency and ZERO national debt. They had the best literacy rate, the best economy, the best education and health care of ANY African nation. (This is who we choose to 'liberate'? Please... Sudan? Darfur? hello?

    Mark my words, by the time the next census is taken Libya will be deep in debt to the IMF and their people will be worse off. Oh, you don't hear the UN reports of violence there any more. But it's up, waaay up. Should we re-liberate?

    "I'd be curious as to why on earth you'd object to them. They seem pretty important."

    Because it's all a lie Gundy. Your dollar is nothing more than a promise from a crooked banker and a corrupt politician, and now we're killing people to defend it.

    No good can come from this...

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    April 30, 2012 10:01 pm

    Who can know whether it would've been better for us in the long run had we never armed Saddam? I certainly can't follow all those probability forks. But one thing I know for sure: regardless of whether it was actually a mistake on our part (i.e. whether the U.S.-Iraq wars were worth our preventing Iran from conquering Iraq in the 80s), I'd never distill from it the universal principle of foreign policy that we should never aid or abet a lesser evil against a greater. That'd be like saying that the Cold War was America's fault because we allied with Stalin during WWII.

    The problem with nukes is that you only need one. And in the case of Israel - that tiny, tiny country - Iranian terrorists wouldn't even need to smuggle it across the border before detonation! It really doesn't matter how many nukes Israel has. Nukes are only a deterrent if you have an instinct for self-preservation, and Islamic terrorists prove every day that they have no such thing. Ahmadinejad won't be like Kruschev. If he gets a nuke, he'll use it just 'cause he can.

    I'm not saying that what's called for in this situation is a full-scale invasion of Iran. All I'm saying is that a Commander in Chief who takes that option off the table is unworthy of his station.

    It seems to me that you just want to return America to its pre-superpower status on the world stage. Well I'm sorry, but that's impossible now. How stupid would we be if we never ever aided those with whom we shared a common goal or opposed those whom we viewed as antagonistic to our interests? If we don't use our influence, we'll lose it. I'm not now talking about becoming a global police force and removing dictators just 'cause they're mean - all I'm talking about is acting out of self-interest! Why is it okay for individual people to act out of self-interest, but not for individual nations to do so on the global stage? To my mind, that's the only reason we have a State Department. Maybe we're defining our terms differently, but it seems to me that you're contesting common sense. Yes, America has made its share of diplomatic and military blunders. All too often we've ignored the law of unintended consequences. But that isn't a sufficient reason to throw up our hands and withdraw from the world.

    As for your "statistics" on Libya ... I'm unclear what you're trying to prove. Cuba has a "99.9%" literacy rate - supposedly the second-best on planet Earth. Does that make Cuba a great place to live? I think not. As for the Libyan economy, it's huge (relative to the rest of Africa, which ain't sayin' much) for the same reason any economy in the Middle East is huge: oil. Saudi Arabia's economy is more than twice the size of Libya's, and all you can bring yourself to say about the Saudis is that they're "dictators that the people there hate." What makes Libya special, other than its former gold standard?

    Remember: I'm against our involvement in the Arab Spring. But that's because I don't believe the rebels are sympathetic to our interests, not because I oppose all foreign intervention, period. I don't think it's even possible for a superpower to avoid foreign intervention.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • roomtemp wrote...
    @Gundy...
    May 1, 2012 12:26 am
    "I certainly can't follow all those probability forks."

    Hahaha! Nope, I'm a Gundy fan and I refuse to believe he would hand WMD to crosseyed pistol toting Arab dictators with funny mustaches. Sorry, not buying it. Anybody astute enough not to capitalize my nick is in the .01 percentile, and is certainly wise enough not to give sarin to the funny mustache guy...lol

    "Iranian terrorists wouldn't even need to smuggle it across the border before detonation!"

    I hate to say it but 'detonation' isn't even necessarily the way to go nowadays. The fact is that Israel is as prepared for 'whatever' as anybody, and better than most. Better than us.

    "As for the Libyan economy, it's huge"

    Gundy, go look at objective statistics from the time of Ghadaffi's coup till the time we had him killed. Certainly, he was no saint and I'm not defending his every move. Yet he did preside over Libya going from the poorest nation in Africa, to the richest. From the least educated, to the most literate. Yes, you're comparing it to the rest of Africa. It IS in Africa after all. Look at the data and ask yourself why. And then ask yourself why we went there.

    "Nukes are only a deterrent if you have an instinct for self-preservation, and Islamic terrorists prove every day that they have no such thing."

    I've debated various ideas with a lot of people around the world, with special focus on ME when I can get it. (magic of the internet ;-) ) This may come as a shock to you but it turns out that most Iranian people I've talked to would just as soon not die in a fiery nuclear fashion. They are worried about us lining up on them, and rightfully so. The regime is milking it for all they can of course. How convincing do they need to be when the fact is we have Iran circled in bases and are constantly sabre rattling? Trust me, the average Iranian has a lot less love for the current regime than you do, and many more reasons why.

    "I'm not saying that what's called for in this situation is a full-scale invasion of Iran."

    It's probably a good thing you're not calling for that. The last set of simulations we ran on it last year gave us unacceptable losses, an arsehanding in fact. We lost a few carrier groups to a bunch of stupid little speedboats with supersonic torpedoes. Stupid cavitating Russian torpedoes! We rejiggered the simulation five times and still couldn't win! There's always the 'turn them into greenish yellow glass option... sigh

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    May 1, 2012 4:18 pm

    Oooh! Flattery! I like that. ;-p And I have to say, roomtemp, that anyone savvy enough not to attempt to pluralize "WMD" with an "s" suffix is someone whose flatteries are not to be scoffed at.

    But flattery notwithstanding, I'd seriously consider selling weapons to Funny Mustache Guy if the alternative - Creepy Longbeard Guy's ascent to regional dominance and the disruption of global oil supply - struck me as even less desirable. In foreign policy - as in party politics - I have no problem supporting the lesser of two evils. I believe that waiting to take action until presented with an ideal candidate or a perfect scenario or a faultless ally does nothing more than guarantee that you'll never get anything you want out of life. Conservatism will never advance in America unless conservatives get behind Mitt Romney, and, perhaps, America's foreign interests will take a beating if we don't support unsavory regimes from time to time.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ roomtemp
    April 30, 2012 5:37 pm

    "We should project the same values internationally that we espouse in our Constitution"? Really? Isn't that what Bush 43 decided he had the prerogative to do when he unilaterally transmogrified America's rationale for the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations from "We're there to protect America" to "We're there to liberate the locals"? Isn't that the reason we've both wished for an exit from those nations for so long now - because Bush started making it his business to "spread liberty" at the expense of American lives? In my belief, the only value that America has any business "projecting" on the international arena is "If you're nice to us, we'll trade with you, but if you so much as point a pop gun in our direction, we'll change your regime for you."

    You see, I agree with you that we need to clear out of both Afghanistan and Iraq, but that's different from thinking that we shouldn't have gone in to begin with. I'm glad you recognize the justice of our Afghanistan invasion (at least initially), but I'm simply not buying the line that the Bush administration lied about all the WMD they thought Saddam was hoarding. That's the real reason we went into Iraq - all other reasons, whether legitimate or illegitimate, were peripheral. And that's how I tie Iraq to 9/11. Because in 2003, no one wanted to risk allowing a powerful, terrorist-supporting, America-hating dictator to stockpile WMD. It's as simple as that. And it's now just as simple in regard to Iran.

    I really don't care whether Iran loves us or hates us, and I don't really care whether or not their feelings are America's fault. There's nothing you or I or Obama or Romney can do about their Supreme Leader's disposition toward the West. All I want is for my federal government to prevent those maniacs from obtaining the Bomb and wiping Israel off the map. That's all. Is that so hard to stomach?

    And regarding our military presence in the Middle East ... correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe we've ever built one single base in one single foreign nation (excepting those nations we've invaded in time of war) without being asked to do so by said nation's government. That's why we're in Saudi Arabia, for instance: because our presence there benefits both us and the Saudis. Just 'cause Bin Laden didn't want us there doesn't mean we've somehow been colonizing them, for crying out loud!

    Regarding Libya and Syria, I agree with you. The Obama administration hasn't even bothered to put up the pretense that our involvement in those civil wars has anything to do with American national security on any level.

    Oh, and in the event that you're right about our "real" reasons for invading Iraq, I'd be curious as to why on earth you'd object to them. They seem pretty important.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Gundy
    April 28, 2012 5:08 pm
    Actually the USA spends little on Defense but spend the bulk on offensive weapons.And for you to throw the other militaries of the world into the same category as the US military shows you have no grasp of the world situation. We are a nation that loves throwing its weight around.We take on nations that have zero chance of inflicting harm on the USA.The international scene is brutal because the number one military power on earth is a brutal country,why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Gundy wrote...
    @ messiah101
    April 29, 2012 8:46 am

    The mere fact that you think there's any significant difference between defensive and offensive weapons means it's not even worth my time to argue this subject with you.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • messiah101 wrote...
    Gundy
    April 30, 2012 8:08 am
    Which of course shows us you have no arrows in your quiver.Yes there was plenty of meat for you to attempt to prove me wrong.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • kiddenme wrote...
    Sure...
    April 27, 2012 3:32 pm
    Romney would have killed him, and he (his cabinet) would have found a way to piss off Pakistan and Iran somehow too and provoked another 10 years of war :)
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    George W. Bush would not have gone after bin Laden
    April 27, 2012 6:44 pm
    because he had the chance at Tora Bora. Instead of surrounding Tora Bora and bringing the murderer of 3000 U.S. citizens, George W. Bush paid Afghanistan warlords millions of dollars to make sure Osama bin Laden stayed alive, safe, and on the road to a hideout in Pakistan.

    George W. Bush knew that he had to keep Osama bin Laden alive and well because it would have been politically impossible to invade Iraq if bin Laden were dead. Bush felt showing up his dad in Iraq was much, much more important than getting justice for a bunch of people Bush hadn't ever met and really didn't care about.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • SeattleD wrote...
    One thing about Obama not getting credit for bin Laden because he didn't pull the trigger
    April 27, 2012 6:59 pm
    That means Obama is not at fault for the employment rate because Obama is not physically in corporate HR offices hiring and firing people.

    And Obama is not to be blamed for Obamacare because Obama was not the one sitting on the computer typing out the words of the actual bill that was passed.

    And Obama is not at fault for high gas prices because Obama is not driving around changing the prices on signs at gas stations.

    In fact that makes Obama pretty much blameless for anything that is going wrong while he is in office. Afterall, Obama isn't really participating in all the things that are happening out there, he's just signing stuff.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ron prevost wrote...
    @ D - 4 key planks for the 2012 Democratic National Platform.
    April 28, 2012 5:16 am
    Thanks for these plank ideas - that 'it's all Bush's fault' gig was starting to wear thin. When can we start seeing the DNC ads?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Drool wrote...
    Would Romney have killed Osama Bin Laden?
    April 27, 2012 8:24 pm
    Yes.

    Then shake the Etch a Sketch

    No

    You see Romney is pro choice until he isn't. He is for government health care until he isn't. He wanted to distance himself from Reagan and now he worships him just behind Joseph Smith. He supported the Brady Bill and assault rifle ban. Now he loves the NRA. FIrst he has guns and then he doesn't. Gotta love it.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }