Obama's first day in office.....

[iguana1]

Ace - I am not making excuses for anything or anyone. Non-partisan experts put the chances of a nuclear terror attack as high as 20%/year within the next 5 years. Our borders and ports are not secure, but we get to playt he same silly games at the airport every single flight so we can pretend we are safe. Extremism is on the rise globally.

If someone gets released from Gitmo and turns around and flies a small plane into a chemical plant in Jersey its on the current administration. If we get attacked next week through a bomb delivered in a shipping container or the Mexican border that is a little less clear. Just like Bush and Clinton both had their shots to stop 9/11 (we can argue about how much the split is) and both failed.

Reality is this world is not black and white, good vs evil etc. It is nuanced and there are pros and cons to closing Gitmo, invading Iraq and many other choices this country has made. I am not saying we all need to agree, but I do think it is worth looking at the problem from all sides and using past experience to determine the right course. Or we could just watch Fox News and parrot what they say because it is easier.

And IGUANA.....this statement...

I think you all know that there is a good chance that we will be attacked in the next 4 years no matter what we do. I think you also know that the 9/11 attack have roots in 1980s Afghanistan.

Sounds like you are already making excuses for whats you feel is coming. If the Globally Hated George W. Bush could keep Americas safe at home for 8 years, why cant OBAMA!?

[iguana1]

Yes Anthony - they all are rallying points for terrorists. It is something we should consider when we go in. Our actions do have reactions. I think it is safe to say Afghanistan was well worth the cost and risk to destroy a 'safe zone' for terrorists, Iraq maybe not so much and Gitmo seems like a huge case in beating a dead horse just for the hell of it. Sure makes for a great debate here at home though.

The answer from the current prez seems to be focus more on where the real risk is and not to do gratiutous stuff for idealogical and political reasons. Case in point, leaving Gates in because he is competent. Case in point, escalating in Afghanistan and dealing with Pakistan. Case in point, getting serious about loose nukes. But maybe we should just focus on Gitmo becuase it supports your opinion that the left loves terrorists.



[QUOTE=anthony;483991]

And rationalization of GITMO.........whats to rationalize. Its as simple as CRIME AND PUNISHMENT! Theses idiots dont need a symbol to rally behind. Their ideology is their rallying point. Give them the justice they entitled the innocents at the World Trade Centers. Give them the justice their own culture affords them. YES.... give them something they understand! Their justice includes murdering innocents, beheadeing innocents, blowing them up! That is the rationale they understand.

Can you rationalize freedom and those who wish to take that away from us? I cant!


Couldn't agree more with you. The thought that Gitmo is a rallying point is beyond ridiculous. If that's the case, then I guess Iraq, Afghanistan and any other stand against terrorism is also a rallying point. What is the answer from the left....do nothing and the radicals will mellow over time? I guess then they will just blow things up every now and then. What is really amazing is how unobjective these obamabots are....I bet he could take a shit and they would call it a masterpiece.

[anthony]

[QUOTE=iguana1;484163]Yes Anthony - they all are rallying points for terrorists. It is something we should consider when we go in. Our actions do have reactions. I think it is safe to say Afghanistan was well worth the cost and risk to destroy a 'safe zone' for terrorists, Iraq maybe not so much and Gitmo seems like a huge case in beating a dead horse just for the hell of it. Sure makes for a great debate here at home though.

The answer from the current prez seems to be focus more on where the real risk is and not to do gratiutous stuff for idealogical and political reasons. Case in point, leaving Gates in because he is competent. Case in point, escalating in Afghanistan and dealing with Pakistan. Case in point, getting serious about loose nukes. But maybe we should just focus on Gitmo becuase it supports your opinion that the left loves terrorists.



You are right, he certainly made a good decision leaving Gates in...we will see how long he stays. The other "cases in point" are merely conjecture. If he does those things he will have my support...he has only given us campaign promises and among them were that he would talk directly to Iran's president which most consider a huge mistake.

Saying any or all of those things are rallying points or that they even need rallying points to spread terror is like saying the oil companies need a reason to raise fuel prices...it may give a few some fodder but they are going to do what they want in the end...and for the terrorists that means they are going to spread terror in the name of Allah and Jihad whether we give them a rallying point or not.