Who does Osama really want to be President?

[GWB]

[colgin]

GWB,

I voted for GWB, which I think at the margins may be true, but the real answer is: (a) how should I know, (b) he likely doesn't know enough to care, and (c) why are we even asking. OBL wants attention and putting this out now is the best way for him to get it. Given the closeness of the election, his followers can now believe that he influenced the election regardless of who win on Tuesday. The best thing we can all do, regardless of whether we are Bush, Kerry, Nader, Libertarian, Green or other supporters is to vote how we would have voted and ignore this murderer.

Mind you, I do not think that it is illegitimate for Kery or Bush to argue, if they care to, that the OBL tape provides evidence that he should be elected over his opponent (because in the case of GWB OBL is still out there and in the case of Kerry because OBL has not been captured or killed by the administration). However, did anybody think that OBL might be dead? I don't think that the fact that he has surfaced now with his abhorrent propaganda tape should affect the way we were going to vote one way or the other.

[jokerswild]

He let's Osma run around blowing things up. Bush hallucinates into thinking that Sadam is Osama.

Kerry would track Osama down and kill him.
Bush loves the bin Laden family.
He would mnver bite the hand that has fed the Bush family 1.5 billion dollars.
probably the reaal this is the rela October surprise:

Osama works for Bush.

[Knockwurst]

That's an easy one. GWB and his policies in Iraq have been a unmitigated boon for OBL.

It provides the most effective recruiting tool since the Russian occupation of Afghanistan and provides a perfect training ground for his followers to hone their combat skills.

A destabilized Iraq will provide a base of operations for OBL's sympathizers for years to come. And the BS about taking the fight to the terrorists is an exercise in self-delusion. Yeah we kill off one in Iraq, and he's got three brothers, a sister and 100 cousins, who now have a personal reason to come at us. The sad fact is they can hit us anytime they want. And believe me it's not a comforting thought riding the subway to work each morning.

The amount of explosives unaccounted for in Iraq is in the order of a couple 100,000 tons, not the 350 tons everyone is making a big deal about. And who knows where this stuff is going to end up.

The offensive that we're gearing up for in Falluja is sure to wipe out a couple thousand Iraqi civilians while the civilian death toll is 18,000-28,000 and counting. Did Saddam kill 100,000 or more of his own people -- certainly. But the difference is now we're responsible for the civilian death toll, and every day that the images are broadcast on arabic t.v. just creates more arabs who want payback. This iraqi misadventure will likely foment Islamic fundamentalism for generations while creating a political vacuum in Iraq for at least as long.
The long range harm to United States interests could make the consequences of our Vietman policy look like a walk in the park.

I hope I'm wrong about all of this, and I hope GWB's Iraq policy proves to be a great success, but unfortunately it seems unlikely.

[anatta]

From NYDailynews:

We want people to think 'terrorism' for the last four days," said a Bush-Cheney campaign official. "And anything that raises the issue in people's minds is good for us."

A senior GOP strategist added, "anything that makes people nervous about their personal safety helps Bush."

He called it "a little gift," saying it helps the President but doesn't guarantee his reelection.



The funny thing is Americans see through this crap, and realize that 8 marines dead with weapons that Bush left unguarded the day after his biggest failure appeared on TV to mock Bush, well that's not a good thing is it?

(see Fox polls, Kerry gained, Zogby Kerry ahead...)

[Thythe]

The best part is GWB thought this poll was going to come out with Kerry being ahead.

[daveymck]

Why are americans asking this question? Was on question time the other night as well, do you want to vote how bin laden votes or against it.

I suspect he will want bush, keeps his families influence in the white house and also I suspect bush will further destabalise the Middle east probably in a year to two years when he invades the next country on the list.

Noone really knows what Bin Ladens aims are and even if he is a real head of as huge a credible terrorist fighting force as has been made out and in relation to the fear both our governments suggest (a series on BBC at the moment suggests he isnt and that al quaida isnt really that big a threat).

I suspect whichever person gets in Bin Laden will be still sitting in luxary somewhere in one of the families homes in Saudi or Pakistan quite happy knowing that he can release a video that gets huge media attention and reinforces the terror much mre than any attack. At the end of the day his organisation have killed what 6-7,000 at most and yet are seen as the greatest threat to the western world ever, yes 9/11 was terrible madrid and bali as well but in the real scheme of the world the effect of the subsequesnt terror of nations is the real damage than the smaller (relatively) of the physical damage.

[sameoldsht]

[ QUOTE ]
Osama works for Bush.


[/ QUOTE ]

LMAO at you.

[MMMMMM]

I think it's significant that the liberals think Osama is more concerned with his recruiting power than with the chances he or his jihadists will get captured or killed.

I think that bin-Laden wants the US out of the Middle East (and thus Iraq too) since he has stated about as much several years ago, and that therefore he must prefer Kerry over Bush.

I'll also note that the liberal view on this seems rather appeasement and fear oriented, as if we ought to be be doing everything possible to "not make them mad at us". I guess you guys still don't get it: they're going to be "mad at us" no matter what we do, and more terrorists are going to be created regardless of how "nice" we are to them. We aren't dealing with rational people here: these are religious nutcases of such conviction and fanaticism that they truly make Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson look like liberal and open-minded by comparison.

Therefore, the best things we can do are:

1) eliminate as many Islamic terrorists as possible, and

2) deny al-Qaeda and related groups resources as much as possible, and

3) use a carrot-and-stick approach to encourage or coerce the reformation of Saudi and Pakistani religious schools, and

4) finish the job in Iraq by taking over Fallujah and thoroughly disarming it, and capturing or killing the terrorists and insurgents within; and see that democracy at least gets a chance to take hold in the Iraq.

I'll also note, as I've noted before, that Islamic terrorists aren't hydras: killing 1 does not automatically produce 3 more (or 100 more, lol) as some of you assert--with no evidence to back up your assertion.

[Thythe]

Your reference to hydras is funny. I can't tell you how many million times I've heard a phrase along this line "if you kill 1, hundreds just grow back in their place." That should make for a great Simpsons episode.

[Knockwurst]

No, it's you conservatives that don't get it. There is absolute incontrovertible evidence that occupying a muslim country and killing jihadi only begets more jihadi. It's called the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Look into it. One thing I'll say for liberals, they seem to consider historical antecedents more than conservatives do.

It's not a matter of appeasement. It's called diplomacy and using diplomatic isolation to effect one's ends, and using war as truly a last resort, because it only creates more problems -- regional destabilization, lack of accounting of a regime's weaponary and resettlement of civilian populations.

Once again, military operations should be a last option. It wasn't necessary here and will likely result in negative consequences for the region and the U.S. for many years to come.

[vulturesrow]

Of course the Russian situation is different in several ways. The most significant of course was the attempt to impose Communism, which is not exactly friendly to any religious freedoms which in a country of strongly religious people, is going to lead to a ton of resistance. Of course look what we have done in Afghanistan. We brought democracy to a place where no one thought it could be done. Look how well the elections went. If there was ever a time for massive terrorist incidents, this would have been it. Nothing significant happened.

You say that regional destabilization is a negative. The problem with that is that is exactly what we want to achieve. We want to challenege the status quo there. We dont the leaders there to think they have a free hand to support terrorists. Also, Arabs respect strength above all. Part of the reason that these terrorist incidents grew over the years is that the US was seen as a paper tiger. They didnt think we would strike back and we finally did. That certainly changes the dynamic when they know they no longer have a free hand to plan and execute terrorist operations.



Tell me again, how do you diplomatically isolate a worldwide confederation of terrorists ? That should be an interesting argument.

[ACPlayer]

Specially as the reason the so called "conservatives" are handing out to justify tens of thousands dead and billions wasted is to hand out democracy to the poor Iraqi's --- I wish you would not tag anti-war heros with the conservative label.

It is not a conservative position to go out nation building while there is much work to be done here. GWB himself said so in 2000.

[MMMMMM]

If we only halfway occupy the country and halfway try to fight the jihadis, you may be right. But we are in more control of Iraq than the Soviets ever were of Afghanistan--and if we would take the kid gloves off and really go after them in Fallujah (and Sadr city, if necessary) we would largely quell the insurgency, in my opinion.

The terrorists and insurgents obviously look forward somewhat to being martyrs, so I say let's speed them on their way. And if some more want to become martyrs too because of that, well we can accomodate them too, can't we? Better to get rid of as many violent crazies as possible, right? And if they are coming out of the woodwork at us, it just makes our job easier if we keep hitting them as fast as they come. Sort of like that arcade game, Pop-A-Weasel, where you try to hit them on the head with a mallet as they pop their heads up out of their holes.

Kill a few jihadis, and you will probably have more jihadis. Kill enough jihadis, though, and you will have LESS jihadis, not more.

Most Iraqis want the country to have a chance and do not want to return to the old dictatorship way of life. We must stay the course and give them that chance they so richly deserve.

[ACPlayer]

There is absolute incontrovertible evidence that occupying a muslim country and killing jihadi only begets more jihadi.

It is not just Muslim countries. Try Vietnam for another example. Try all the countries that have been colonized by imperialists and then the imperialists have been thrown out.

The neo-cons pushing for war prefer to think with their, how shall I put this, "other head". While there are plenty of anti-war types who would rather not fight at all -- reasonable thinkers, rather than emotional reactors, know better -- ask Cyrus.

[Knockwurst]

Vulture -- when I was talking about diplomatic isolation I was talking about Saddam. But in a sense I think we can also seek to isolate the terrorists, though it's much more complicated long-term process, and involves isolating the doctrine of the jihadi, which by the way is being exported from some of the very governments we support such as Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, yes -- Afghanistan was a war of last resort, and we had to dismantle the state sponsered terrorism being exported from there. We should assinate terrorists and cut off their funding, but I really don't believe that regional destabilization is a goal we should be engendering. The consequences of a nuclear armed Iran, being the dominant regional power is scary. Are you really willing to go into Iran and occupy it at this point? Even if you wanted to, the Iraqi occupation has taken away any capability to do it, not to mention getting support from other countries now.

AC Player -- sorry about using conservative when I should have used neo-con or hawk. There are many conservatives who have stood up against GWB's Iraq policy: Pat Buchanan, George Will, William Kristol (I think he's come out against the war belatedly), Chuck Hagel, and they should be congratulated for having the balls to go against the Admistration line.

MMMMMM -- isn't it whak-a-mole? Unfortunately, you're right that we can't cut and run now. We've got to see it through to the bitter end, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to offer up an honest critique of the Adminstration's Iraq policy. I think you're mistaken about the consequences of going into Falluja. If we kill 10,000 civilians there, which I think is a possibility, it will be remembered as an American-led massacre for many years to come.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll also note that the liberal view on this seems rather appeasement and fear oriented, as if we ought to be be doing everything possible to "not make them mad at us". I guess you guys still don't get it: they're going to be "mad at us" no matter what we do, and more terrorists are going to be created regardless of how "nice" we are to them. We aren't dealing with rational people here: these are religious nutcases of such conviction and fanaticism that they truly make Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson look like liberal and open-minded by comparison.

[/ QUOTE ]

But who are "they"? It is certainly true that in Al-Qaeda and other organizations we are dealing with a bunch of religious nutcases bent on our destruction. But most Arabs are not like that, and we need to think about how we might keep them that way.

I don't see how this cannot be seen as an absolutely fundamental prerogative. If we are to succeed, we need to be truthful with ourselves about the forces that are pushing people towards extremism. These include:

A) Despotic governments propped up by us - this topic has been covered pretty extensively and needs no further mention

B) The absence of real states - post-colonial state structures in the middle east are underdeveloped and the governments lack legitimacy in much of the territories they purport to control. This is a huge problem, maybe one without a solution.

B) Enormous economic problems - it is simply a fact that much of the increase in radicalism in this area of the world coincided with the oil bust of the 1980s. Arab nationalism was really a modernizing ideology, and it was discredited among many once things fell apart economically.

C) Demographics - these are very young populations, and young men who are serially unemployed and see no prospects in life tend to be pretty good marks for extremist recruiters

D) Serious anger about perceived American imperialism - like it or not, our actions in Iraw and Afghanistan have provoked enormous resentment, as has our complete unwillingness to own up to our checkered history of intervention in the region during the cold war.

One big problem is that, out of interest in their own survival, politicians in America simply cannot acknowledge two things. The first is that part of this mess is of our own making, through a long history of misguided interventions and shady deals with tyrants, not to mention more recent policy. The second is that so much of this mess is actually completely out of our control. The structural factors like the absence of real states in the region and underdeveloped economies are the ultimate sources of problems. And there is no policy prescription for dealing with them.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
The best part is GWB thought this poll was going to come out with Kerry being ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I do polls from time to time just to remind myself how liberal 2+2 is (at least those that visit this forum). I'd go bonkers if I thought this forum reflected the country at large.

ps - keep posting here after the election is over. There is more to life than just bonus whoring. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The fact that 71% of the people didn't choose "he doesn't care" is evidence of either mass ignorance or partisan stupidity.

[QuadsOverQuads]

As far as bin Laden and his ilk are concerned, Bush is the gift that keeps on giving.

q/q