StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) I find that incredibly hard to believe. http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/14/nation/na-osama14 Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? W: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:43 PM) No more funny than Democrats exploiting it after complaining for years about Republicans doing it. If Obama had simply spoke to his accomplishment of overseeing the operation that killed Osama, I'd say that there wasn't real equivalency. But dragging Romney into it explicitly and implying that his opponent wouldn't have taken out the bad man is pretty similar to attacking Democrats by saying they're against removing a brutal dictator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2012 -> 03:44 PM) http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/14/nation/na-osama14 Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive? W: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. Lol, wow. That is not at all "he didn't give a s*** where Osama was." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 "I don't know where he is. [...] I truly am not that concerned about him." How is that substantially different from saying he didn't give a s*** where he was? He said he didn't know and wasn't concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2012 -> 04:07 PM) "I don't know where he is. [...] I truly am not that concerned about him." How is that substantially different from saying he didn't give a s*** where he was? He said he didn't know and wasn't concerned. I read that as he's not concerned about his activities (not fearful of another attack), not that he's done looking for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Thats what he meant. (imo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 04:22 PM) I read that as he's not concerned about his activities (not fearful of another attack), not that he's done looking for him. The Bush WH shifted a substantial amount of resources away from Afghanistan, the Taliban and the Pakistani border in favor of Iraq. I don't think it's unfair to say that he really didn't care about finding bin laden that much. Would he have taken him out given a good opportunity? Sure, but they weren't pouring resources into finding him at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Which was smart because pouring resources into capturing 1 individual is a poor use of resources. (haha used pour and poor in the same sentence) Bin Laden was good for national pride, but his death likely accomplished nothing in the grand scheme of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:51 PM) Which was smart because pouring resources into capturing 1 individual is a poor use of resources. (haha used pour and poor in the same sentence) Bin Laden was good for national pride, but his death likely accomplished nothing in the grand scheme of things. This would have been true if he was totally disconnected from the organization. We don't know everything, but the fact that they found a treasure trove of intel suggests that he was actively running the organization and that there were substantial tactical benefits to specifically getting him beyond just him being a symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 I just am not super impressed with Bin Laden. I dont think he was some sort of mastermind who was irreplaceable. If anything (imo) he was a complete failure. He had tons of money, tons of support and at the end of the day his greatest achievement was the twin towers? Im pretty sure I could get that type of death toll with considerably less funding. All it really took was convincing a handful of people to die for their cause and taking advantage of system where you were instructed to not confront a terrorist and to placate them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 04:51 PM) Which was smart because pouring resources into capturing 1 individual is a poor use of resources. (haha used pour and poor in the same sentence) Bin Laden was good for national pride, but his death likely accomplished nothing in the grand scheme of things. Obama would be perfectly right to claim that he cared more about capturing or killing Osama than Bush. Their use of resources demonstrates this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 And I would say Obama wasted resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:00 PM) I just am not super impressed with Bin Laden. I dont think he was some sort of mastermind who was irreplaceable. If anything (imo) he was a complete failure. He had tons of money, tons of support and at the end of the day his greatest achievement was the twin towers? Im pretty sure I could get that type of death toll with considerably less funding. All it really took was convincing a handful of people to die for their cause and taking advantage of system where you were instructed to not confront a terrorist and to placate them. Well, he also got his enemies to get involved in a couple 10+ years wars and expend a large amount of money doing so while also fundamentally changing their culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:02 PM) And I would say Obama wasted resources. Ok, but whether or not you agree with their policies doesn't mean that it was inaccurate to say Bush didn't give a s***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 2, 2012 -> 06:00 PM) I just am not super impressed with Bin Laden. I dont think he was some sort of mastermind who was irreplaceable. If anything (imo) he was a complete failure. He had tons of money, tons of support and at the end of the day his greatest achievement was the twin towers? Im pretty sure I could get that type of death toll with considerably less funding. All it really took was convincing a handful of people to die for their cause and taking advantage of system where you were instructed to not confront a terrorist and to placate them. I believe the actual attacks themselves, including lodging, training, passports, plane flights, etc., cost less than a million dollars, although I'm not going through the full 911 commission report for the exact number and Google isn't easily supplying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) Ok, but whether or not you agree with their policies doesn't mean that it was inaccurate to say Bush didn't give a s***. I dont know if this is true or not, I never spoke with Bush. You are making a lot of assumptions, Im pretty sure anything Bush was doing to get Osama was classified, so it really is irrelevant. Which is why I was commenting on the fact that I think Bush wasnt that out of line if he was saying that Osama wasnt really a worry anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:03 PM) Ok, but whether or not you agree with their policies doesn't mean that it was inaccurate to say Bush didn't give a s***. Dude, read the first sentence of his answer. He's clearly talking about his fear of a threat, not whether Bin Laden was an important get in the war. And why do you guys keep claiming that Obama did so much more? They were provided an opportunity and jumped on it. You have no proof that Bush or Romney or anyone else wouldn't have done the exact same thing. 8 years with nothing and suddenly a name jumps into their lap and the check it out. That's not some genius move that only Obama could make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 2, 2012 -> 05:21 PM) Dude, read the first sentence of his answer. He's clearly talking about his fear of a threat, not whether Bin Laden was an important get in the war. And why do you guys keep claiming that Obama did so much more? They were provided an opportunity and jumped on it. You have no proof that Bush or Romney or anyone else wouldn't have done the exact same thing. 8 years with nothing and suddenly a name jumps into their lap and the check it out. That's not some genius move that only Obama could make. And they got that information from *GASP*... KSM. Something Obama (dare I say it) wouldn't have done. Next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 QUOTE (kapkomet @ May 2, 2012 -> 07:03 PM) And they got that information from *GASP*... KSM. Something Obama (dare I say it) wouldn't have done. Next. Still untrue that the only source was KSM, still untrue that they obtained the name during torture, still untrue that they only could have obtained the name during torture, still true that I get sick every time an American endorses this crap that we'd send other people to death if they did to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 And as always, I'll give these guys the last word. The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Victory Lapse www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c Victory Lapse - Politicizing Osama bin Laden's & Saddam Hussein's Deaths www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I love the Republicans did it defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 3, 2012 -> 09:59 AM) I love the Republicans did it defense. I love the "haha we suck but now so do you" attack! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 3, 2012 -> 09:03 AM) I love the "haha we suck but now so do you" attack! You might as well be voting for Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Ill be voting for Obama, but Romney would probably be okay too. Really doesnt matter to me as Romney is a businessman so I assume he understands how to put all of the social aspects of the Republican party to the background and focus on what really matters. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted May 3, 2012 Author Share Posted May 3, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 3, 2012 -> 10:18 AM) Ill be voting for Obama, but Romney would probably be okay too. Really doesnt matter to me as Romney is a businessman so I assume he understands how to put all of the social aspects of the Republican party to the background and focus on what really matters. Who knows. Romney may not focus on the social issues himself, but he won't do anything to stand in the way of a GOP-controlled House and Senate. Plus potential SCOTUS appointments, and the court already has a bunch of young, hard-right conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts