Your Take on Obama's Approach to Stopping Terrorism

[Greg Meyer]

Well, its been about 75 days since he took office and he has announced the closing of "Gotme" (what they should call it). There are other announced changes and signalled attitude "changes". Where do you think that will ultimately lead. I do approve of a more aggressive approach in Afghanistan. I just don't want to let up here at home.

 

[Tim Koepp]

I agree with the step up in Afghanastan too. but I wonder if it is the result of an "Oh Sheit" awareness when he got his first super secret security agency briefing.



I also wonder to myself if its not one of the single moves he has figured out that he can do, without much pushback, to show he actually has any foriegn policy plan.

 

[Scott Hammer TOXIC]

Well, I'll tell you this, he camPAINed on gettin us out of the middle east and closing Gitmo. Under his watch they released a Gitmo detainee who headed directly back to Al Queida and is now one of their top officials, instead of getting us out of the middle east (wich I didn't agree with anyway), he is beefing up and sending more troops to Afghanistan/Pakistan. -0- for 2 in my book. Let's see if the media gives him the daily death count like they did Bush.



TOXIC

 

[Texas Transplant]

On the Afganastan front . . . .



Let's apply the same rules now, that the Dem's wanted several years ago.



Prove your case for wanting 80-100,000 troops into Afg.



What is the exit strategy, and 'when' will they come home.



And if there is no direct threat to us, why are we going back in.



I also guess that the reason that he wanted to take most of the troops out of Iraq, is so that he could put them in Afganistan. BTW, isn't the the Committee that Obama was supposed to 'chair', but never held a meeting or actually visited the country. . . .



Let's have the same rules now.



Tex

 

[Bruce Freeman]

Better yet, but a bullseye on his vest and let him go visit?



BF

 

[Dan J.]

Tox hit it dead-on; 0 for 2. The liberal media will whitewash his debacles as long as possible, until his popularity descent intersects with their revenues lost. Then they'll choose a new leader for everyone to see, hear, and love 24/7 until ACORN confirms their election. Maybe Al Franken will get the nod. :wacko: :blink:

 

[Mark Hofman]

I disagree. When folks begin to lose hope in change, the Clinton machine will pull the 'I-told-you-so' and we'll see our first female president. Franken will be a good(?)V.P. candidate...funny to go with 'honey'.

 

[Bill McElroy]

OMG,.......I can imagine the "Franken-Clinton" posters that would come with that ticket!!:lol:

 

[Randy Walls]

YOu have to imagine them Mac, aren't they going to commission you to draw them?



Randy!

 

[Texas Transplant]

I think that Hillary Clinton's 'time' to be President, went by. The Democratic Party certainly won't change out a sitting President (after all, it's extremely difficult to unseat a sitting President, without something really strange happening - and certainly not by their own party). Generally speaking, you get one real chance to be President. Very unusual to get two (although Nixon certainly made the case).



Let's face facts: He got elected because he did a great job on the 'stump', and McCain did a very poor job with his campaign in the closing months. That, and he was a little too center/left - for quite a few of the conservatives.



Tex

 

[Rob LaMoy]

Guys, there is SO much we "the people" are not privy to, it's scary. Me even posting this may be an issue or it may get wiped clean but here goes anyway.

As many of you know, due to family and a former marketing job for an ammo company, I have many military contacts. For his safety, I will not mention any names, but a VERY reliable person, with absolutely NO reason to lie that is a Marine sniper relayed to me that on more than one occasion, and one of them himself, they had Osama bin Laden IN THE CROSSHAIRS and were told to stand down!

I'll let you draw your own conclusions.:angry:

 

[Mini]

Rob that is widely known. And has happened on more than one occaision. I have personally spoken with an enlisted man that was there during one call to stand down. The soldiers could not beleive it. This was under Bush Sr.

 

[Bill McElroy]

He did the same for Hussein....during the liberation of Kuwait. Our fighter bombers had his motorcade pegged and in their crosshairs, but he was in Iraqi territory and NOT in Kuwait, so they were told to back off, since the US mission was to "Liberate Kuwait",..NOT assassinate Saddam. (We had to save that for Act II)



I too was also told of another incident over there where a certain "team" had him (Saddam) in their sniper rifle scopes and were told to stand down......don't ya just love it when politicians fight wars?



Now here's a thought to ponder,.........let's say we GOT bin Laden,.....would they or would they NOT tell us?? If it was widely known and publicized that bin Laden was dead,..would the War on Terrorism all the sudden be over?? Would congress immediately pull the plug on all WOT spending and bring everyone home?? Would defense contractors all the sudden see their budgets dry up and lay people off by the thousands or hundreds of thousands?? Is this "war" now a business?? The same goes for Cancer Research,..IF they found a cure,..would it be beneficial or an economic disaster?? There are a LOT of people employed because of war and cancer in all aspects,..defense contractors, R&D, Insurance and drug companies, entire INDUSTRIES built on finding a "cure" ......would an end to both help or hinder??...Or,..will we always be looking for OBL who could very well have been killed in a cave 6-7 years ago and we'll NEVER know (aka we'll never "find" him)........and will a real cure for cancer cause a huge "unemployment issue":huh: Something to discuss with your buds over a few beers!!

 

[Mini]

Same thing for the "war" on drugs. Too many people employed, too many $$ earmarked to be spent fighting it. If the stopped it, or legalized some of it, the budgets would get cut.



But you really have to ask yourself who is really paying for it? Thats right you and I.

 

[Rob LaMoy]

That's my point exactly guys. If we did eliminate him then the general opinion of most americans would be that we no longer need to be there and would demand we get out. That would leave a hole in the budget, etc. But it would leave a hole in the terrorist leadership that would be quickly filled. We would still need to finish the job. My point is, get rid of him and KEEP on cutting off the head of the snake until you kill it. Then reappoint those resources to the southern border! There is enough crap spilling over from Mexican drug cartels to keep our military busy on the border. And I bet those thugs would think twice when they saw a couple thousand armed delta rangers sitting in TX waiting.