NASA Administrator... "(My) Primary Charge Is To Reach Out To Muslims"...

[apple0154]

He didn't promise to "change" anything in that war. He promoted it as the "right war". You are attempting to rewrite recent history with your own "hope" rather than what the man said. He's fighting the "right war", the one he promised during the campaign to win as well as to bring Bin Laden to justice.

Again, reality doesn't match what you are saying. You spent time telling me those wars weren't happening. I only point out that you are engaging in rewriting the present, it isn't even history you are attempting to rewrite. Do you think Joe Mohamed cares that the President speaks with less "cowboy" when his father is killed and called "collateral damage"?

I'm sure Joe Mohamed doesn't care what the reason was.

I have no idea what you mean by, "You spent time telling me those wars weren't happening."

My point is there is a big difference between Obama fighting a war that was ongoing compared to Bush shooting off his mouth about Iran and Syria and North Korea and whatever country happened to cross his atrophied mind.

 

[apple0154]

It sounds like apple needs a reminder that the Democratic argument during the 2000's was Bush took his eye off the important war, Afghanistan, by going to Iraq. It wasn't we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. Go check out John Kerry's 2004 platform. 90% of the country supported going into Afghanistan at the time we did it. That was hardly a 'cowboy' maneuver.

The "cowboy maneuver" is not about Afghanistan. It was Bush's policy regarding other countries.

I have no objection to going into Afghanistan to find Osama but it's become a whole new ball game. For example, the opium fields. Stop the opium from coming into this country but leave the people alone to grow it in Afghanistan if they want.

If people want to talk about morality is legalized prostitution in Nevada moral while growing opium isn't?

If we want to talk freedom let's start by leaving other countries alone.

Here's a point to ponder. Many people go on and on about the 2nd Amendment (gun law). The claim is the Founding Fathers wanted the people to be able to protect themselves against their own government should the government go "rogue". (Acknowledgment to Palin.)

Considering the Founding Fathers are held in such high esteem because they were intelligent and realized it was possible the US may end up with a bad government "we" expect the rest of the world to allow the US to have nuclear armaments while denying the rest of the world the same right.

Does anyone honestly expect countries throughout the world to trust the US government when the Founding Fathers, the people who created the government, didn't trust government themselves?

Where is the logic for one to say they have a right to own a gun in order to protect themselves from their own government but the rest of the world does not have that same right to protect themselves from that same government?

 

[apple0154]

Out of curiosity why can't we leave Afghanistan?

When the US invades a country people choose sides. If memory serves the US has, in the past, encouraged citizens of foreign countries to rise up against their government promising to be there to help and when the time came to help the US simply left.

Green zones are established. The US protects citizens who have, for lack of a better word, defected. If the US leaves those folks will be at the mercy of the general population. That's one of the reasons.

That's why invading countries is usually a bad idea. At the very least Obama is not going around threatening countries. That's a big change in itself.

 

[Damocles]

I disagreed with both bush and Obama on Afghanistan.

Your point is what? That before election day I should have somehow divined that Obama wasn't really going to pull out those troops? That I should have voted for McCain because he, of course, campaigned on immediate troop withdrawal from both A'stan and Iraq? </sarcasm>

Obama gave his own reasons for staying, reasons I disagree with, but he sure as heck isn't bloviating about "spreading freedom and democracy".

My point is that your post that it isn't happening is false and based solely on what you want to feel rather than what is.

 

[Damocles]

I'm sure Joe Mohamed doesn't care what the reason was.

I have no idea what you mean by, "You spent time telling me those wars weren't happening."

My point is there is a big difference between Obama fighting a war that was ongoing compared to Bush shooting off his mouth about Iran and Syria and North Korea and whatever country happened to cross his atrophied mind.

I'm telling you, that you posted a "Oh yeah, thank got it isn't happening" post to somebody who said, "Thank gawd we aren't changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun..."

We have two war zones still in the ME, you can't just ignore the fact that people are dying because you want to feel good.

 

[apple0154]

I'm telling you, that you posted a "Oh yeah, thank got it isn't happening" post to somebody who said, "Thank gawd we aren't changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun..."

We have two war zones still in the ME, you can't just ignore the fact that people are dying because you want to feel good.

But Obama isn't trying to change the ME at the point of a gun. That was Bush policy. That resulted in the people fighting back. So now we have people shooting at us. As we try to rectify the situation we still have to shoot back to protect ourselves.

That's what happens when war-mongers start wars. There are repercussions over and above just winning an invasion.

The point is Obama is not mouthing off about invading other countries. Surely you can see a difference between getting Muslim countries interested in NASA as opposed to threats of invasion.

And, "Yes, thank God Repubs are not in power starting another war somewhere else."

 

[Minister of Truth]

Thank God the ME states initiated the Apollo Program.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Thank God the ME states initiated the Apollo Program.

Ah yes. the white paper for the implementation of energy totalitarianism.

 

[Damocles]

But Obama isn't trying to change the ME at the point of a gun. That was Bush policy. That resulted in the people fighting back. So now we have people shooting at us. As we try to rectify the situation we still have to shoot back to protect ourselves.

That's what happens when war-mongers start wars. There are repercussions over and above just winning an invasion.

The point is Obama is not mouthing off about invading other countries. Surely you can see a difference between getting Muslim countries interested in NASA as opposed to threats of invasion.

And, "Yes, thank God Repubs are not in power starting another war somewhere else."

Rubbish, Obama chose to send still more people with guns, to continue to bomb from remote control planes, promoted the war as the "right war"... fought for the right to continue extraordinary rendition, extended and increased the power of the government in the wireless wiretapping (after promising to end it several times in his campaign), continues to hold people in GITMO...

You continue to ignore reality because you want to "feel good" about who you voted for. He promoted the war, he chose to send more people in buying into COIN, he ran on fighting the war in Afghanistan and you want to pretend it doesn't have anything to do with him? Then he not only continues, but actually strengthens some of the worst of Bush policy...

You really are hacktackular. Seriously, if you can't actually see the action rather than listen to the pander then you really shouldn't participate in politics. I know you have a hard time hearing over the shiny on your "exciting" new President, but it's just lacquer over the same old policy. Seriously, ignoring what the man does because you just want to feel good because of the party is just delusional.

 

[christiefan915]

My point is that your post that it isn't happening is false and based solely on what you want to feel rather than what is.

You're going to have to work a lot harder to insult me for cause. I'm not "feeling" anything, I'm stating outright that Obama never talked about nation-building or spreading freedom and democracy, as bush did.

Obama decided to mop up bush's snafus but that doesn't translate to him following the bush doctrine.

 

[Damocles]

You're going to have to work a lot harder to insult me for cause. I'm not "feeling" anything, I'm stating outright that Obama never talked about nation-building or spreading freedom and democracy, as bush did.

Obama decided to mop up bush's snafus but that doesn't translate to him following the bush doctrine.

I'm not insulting you, I'm flat pointing out fact. He escalated both extraordinary rendition and the war, he promoted the war as the "right war" during his campaign, he increased the number of troops, he fought in court for the right to continue extraordinary rendition and won, he escalated the wireless wiretapping program, all of these are true.

Your imagination notwithstanding, Obama is not "cleaning up a SNAFU" he absolutely is fighting a war that he said was the "right war"...

Saying "Thank god we're no longer" is absolute nonsense and only based on what you want to feel rather than what is. You are delusional if you think we aren't "changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun"...

 

[apple0154]

I'm not insulting you, I'm flat pointing out fact. He escalated both extraordinary rendition and the war, he promoted the war as the "right war" during his campaign, he increased the number of troops, he fought in court for the right to continue extraordinary rendition and won, he escalated the wireless wiretapping program, all of these are true.

Your imagination notwithstanding, Obama is not "cleaning up a SNAFU" he absolutely is fighting a war that he said was the "right war"...

Saying "Thank god we're no longer" is absolute nonsense and only based on what you want to feel rather than what is. You are delusional if you think we aren't "changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun"...

The problem was the Taliban. Then, in no particular order, it became the opium farmers. Then establishing a pro-western government. That was and is the problem.

Blow up the country and then promise to rebuild it. Of course, getting rid of the opium farmers and deciding what type of government would be instilled came along with the rebuilding.

Now the war is not just against the Taliban. Many of the Afghan people don't like interference. If they want to live in caves or mud huts and grow poppies that's their business.

The problem is some Afghans, especially in the cities, like the western style of government/freedom so we have a country with a divided population. Do we just leave and allow the old style of government to return, leave the farmers to do whatever they want and the possibility of, say, women not being allowed to get an education, or do we stay and try to get the rural population to go along with a new way of life?

That is the reality of today. That is the situation Obama walked into. That's why there's going to be a problem whichever way he decides; leave or stay.

The difference between him and Bush is he is not saber-rattling with other countries. Do we want the same situation is Iran? Syria? North Korea?

People talk about mortgaging their children's future because of Obama's medical plan. Is it better to mortgage our children's lives because of on-going wars?

Obama saying it's the right war does not mean he believes it was handled properly. We should have got in and got out but Bush had no intention of getting out. So after eight years some of the population have adjusted their lives to the new government/occupation because they were led to believe the US would change things. But other segments of the population don't want change.

As Christiefan explained Obama is mopping up Bush's mess the best way he can. Even the military leaders don't/didn't know what to do. That's the quagmire that's Bush's legacy.

So, thank God we only have Afghanistan and not 3 or 4 countries in the same position.

 

[Damocles]

The problem was the Taliban. Then, in no particular order, it became the opium farmers. Then establishing a pro-western government. That was and is the problem.

Blow up the country and then promise to rebuild it. Of course, getting rid of the opium farmers and deciding what type of government would be instilled came along with the rebuilding.

Now the war is not just against the Taliban. Many of the Afghan people don't like interference. If they want to live in caves or mud huts and grow poppies that's their business.

The problem is some Afghans, especially in the cities, like the western style of government/freedom so we have a country with a divided population. Do we just leave and allow the old style of government to return, leave the farmers to do whatever they want and the possibility of, say, women not being allowed to get an education, or do we stay and try to get the rural population to go along with a new way of life?

That is the reality of today. That is the situation Obama walked into. That's why there's going to be a problem whichever way he decides; leave or stay.

The difference between him and Bush is he is not saber-rattling with other countries. Do we want the same situation is Iran? Syria? North Korea?

People talk about mortgaging their children's future because of Obama's medical plan. Is it better to mortgage our children's lives because of on-going wars?

Obama saying it's the right war does not mean he believes it was handled properly. We should have got in and got out but Bush had no intention of getting out. So after eight years some of the population have adjusted their lives to the new government/occupation because they were led to believe the US would change things. But other segments of the population don't want change.

As Christiefan explained Obama is mopping up Bush's mess the best way he can. Even the military leaders don't/didn't know what to do. That's the quagmire that's Bush's legacy.

So, thank God we only have Afghanistan and not 3 or 4 countries in the same position.

This is simply a statement of fact, your post that we were not "changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun" is total fabrication. It has nothing to do with whether he thinks it was being conducted correctly (it was being ignored according to him). None of your other stuff even gets close to showing you understand the point of my post at all. Even if he is waging the war to "clean up" a mess of Bush's (he isn't, he said repeatedly it was the "right war") it doesn't change that we are changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun, attempting to select leaders for them, continuing extraordinary rendition (he promised several times during the campaign he would end it, instead he increased it and "won" a ruling by the courts that "allowed" him to expand that program).

All of these things prove your original sentiment was flatly incorrect. I point out that it has to be based on emotion rather than brain power because anybody using their actual brain can see that the statement was flat incorrect.

 

[apple0154]

This is simply a statement of fact, your post that we were not "changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun" is total fabrication. It has nothing to do with whether he thinks it was being conducted correctly (it was being ignored according to him). None of your other stuff even gets close to showing you understand the point of my post at all. Even if he is waging the war to "clean up" a mess of Bush's (he isn't, he said repeatedly it was the "right war") it doesn't change that we are changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun, attempting to select leaders for them, continuing extraordinary rendition (he promised several times during the campaign he would end it, instead he increased it and "won" a ruling by the courts that "allowed" him to expand that program).

All of these things prove your original sentiment was flatly incorrect. I point out that it has to be based on emotion rather than brain power because anybody using their actual brain can see that the statement was flat incorrect.

As I posted previously Obama has little choice. Because Bush's plan was to stay and install a puppet government wheels were set in motion. Some of the Afghan people adjusted their lives to the new reality. Others didn't and have no plans to do so.

Obama's job is to make the people, those who were convinced the US was staying, understand that that's no longer the case all the while trying to convince the others that the situation can not return to the way it was. Stated another way we gave some of the population false hope (those who want US intervention) and on the other hand we made enemies of the people who don't want the US there. Or stated another way, Obama doesn't want a civil war to happen.

Bush wanted to install a pro-US government. Obama simply wants a government, neither pro-nor-con the US in order to prevent civil war. There is a difference.

If Bush had got in and got out without interfering with the general population, trying to change their society, we'd be looking at a very different picture. Obama is not trying to change their society. He's trying to find a way out while preventing civil war.

So, Obama is not trying to change the face of the ME at the point of a gun. He just wants to find a way out without wholesale slaughter to follow.

Didn't you pick up on that with McCrystal's interview?

(Excerpt) From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military's preference for high-tech violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve.......

"The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense. (End)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=1

That's the difference.

 

[christiefan915]

As I posted previously Obama has little choice. Because Bush's plan was to stay and install a puppet government wheels were set in motion. Some of the Afghan people adjusted their lives to the new reality. Others didn't and have no plans to do so.

Obama's job is to make the people, those who were convinced the US was staying, understand that that's no longer the case all the while trying to convince the others that the situation can not return to the way it was. Stated another way we gave some of the population false hope (those who want US intervention) and on the other hand we made enemies of the people who don't want the US there. Or stated another way, Obama doesn't want a civil war to happen.

Bush wanted to install a pro-US government. Obama simply wants a government, neither pro-nor-con the US in order to prevent civil war. There is a difference.

If Bush had got in and got out without interfering with the general population, trying to change their society, we'd be looking at a very different picture. Obama is not trying to change their society. He's trying to find a way out while preventing civil war.

So, Obama is not trying to change the face of the ME at the point of a gun. He just wants to find a way out without wholesale slaughter to follow.

Didn't you pick up on that with McCrystal's interview?

(Excerpt) From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military's preference for high-tech violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve.......

"The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense. (End)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=1

That's the difference.

 

[Damocles]

As I posted previously Obama has little choice. Because Bush's plan was to stay and install a puppet government wheels were set in motion. Some of the Afghan people adjusted their lives to the new reality. Others didn't and have no plans to do so.

Obama's job is to make the people, those who were convinced the US was staying, understand that that's no longer the case all the while trying to convince the others that the situation can not return to the way it was. Stated another way we gave some of the population false hope (those who want US intervention) and on the other hand we made enemies of the people who don't want the US there. Or stated another way, Obama doesn't want a civil war to happen.

Bush wanted to install a pro-US government. Obama simply wants a government, neither pro-nor-con the US in order to prevent civil war. There is a difference.

If Bush had got in and got out without interfering with the general population, trying to change their society, we'd be looking at a very different picture. Obama is not trying to change their society. He's trying to find a way out while preventing civil war.

So, Obama is not trying to change the face of the ME at the point of a gun. He just wants to find a way out without wholesale slaughter to follow.

Didn't you pick up on that with McCrystal's interview?

(Excerpt) From the start, McChrystal was determined to place his personal stamp on Afghanistan, to use it as a laboratory for a controversial military strategy known as counterinsurgency. COIN, as the theory is known, is the new gospel of the Pentagon brass, a doctrine that attempts to square the military's preference for high-tech violence with the demands of fighting protracted wars in failed states. COIN calls for sending huge numbers of ground troops to not only destroy the enemy, but to live among the civilian population and slowly rebuild, or build from scratch, another nation's government – a process that even its staunchest advocates admit requires years, if not decades, to achieve.......

"The entire COIN strategy is a fraud perpetuated on the American people," says Douglas Macgregor, a retired colonel and leading critic of counterinsurgency who attended West Point with McChrystal. "The idea that we are going to spend a trillion dollars to reshape the culture of the Islamic world is utter nonsense. (End)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=1

That's the difference.

No, the difference is between reality and your assertion. We are in fact, "changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun", even if you want to try to spin out of it.

He INCREASED troops there, not to get out faster, but because he bought into COIN. He continues extraordinary rendition, he bombs people anonymously from remote controlled planes, in every way he does everything you are saying he isn't.

 

[Timshel]

That's a mole hill.

Honestly, getting the Muslims to embrace their history of science could do a lot to help moderate the fundamentalists.

I really doubt it was intended that these PR tasks take precedence over the science. Obviously, NASA serves a role in inspiring a love of science. What's wrong with that?

 

[Timshel]

That isn't what he said, his job is to make them feel better about themselves, not encourage cooperation.

Ehhhh... I think you are getting hung up on his phrasing. Who knows if that is even how Obama put it to him. It is somewhat condescending to Muslims, but...

For obvious reasons NASA needs to look to build bridges internationally and they do serve as an ambassador of science at home and may as well do so abroad.

Just another bullshit non issue being whipped up by Fox.

 

[apple0154]

No, the difference is between reality and your assertion. We are in fact, "changing the face of the ME at the point of a gun", even if you want to try to spin out of it.

He INCREASED troops there, not to get out faster, but because he bought into COIN. He continues extraordinary rendition, he bombs people anonymously from remote controlled planes, in every way he does everything you are saying he isn't.

Afghanistan is not the entire ME.

Again, he is not deliberately antagonizing/threatening other countries.

When Bush was President we continually heard about Iran and Syria and North Korea, not to mention Iraq. Obama's foreign policies/rhetoric are nothing like Bush's.

 

[Damocles]

Afghanistan is not the entire ME.

Again, he is not deliberately antagonizing/threatening other countries.

When Bush was President we continually heard about Iran and Syria and North Korea, not to mention Iraq. Obama's foreign policies/rhetoric are nothing like Bush's.

It is however in the ME... Does anybody remember that "all options are on the table" answer when asked if he would take military action on Iran rather than let them get the nuke? Yeah. If that were Ike you'd say he was "might makes right"... instead you are trying to pretend that the same two wars, following the same path set first by Bush (it can be argued that Obama sent more troops than Bush would have to Afghanistan), are not "changing the face of the ME", but I think you are just spinning in an attempt to justify a stupid statement.

We are definitely shooting people there, and attempting to "change the face of the ME" at the point of a gun, we are still using every method we did before, we've escalated anonymous bombing from remote controlled planes, we've escalated extraordinary rendition...

Yeah, it's all just silly spin to attempt to say it is magically better because of rhetoric. It isn't. If rhetoric was the gun, maybe, but it isn't. When we've stepped out of the theater, when we no longer pay Egyptians to torture "enemy combatants"... When we've stopped trying to prop up governments there, then you can say that. Until then, we are still at war, there is still a gun pointed at the "face of the ME"...

Let me make an analogy...

You're like a group of kids who have been led down the "wrong path" by a ruffian who are slashing tires down the next neighborhood. That ruffian is forced to move to Kansas because his father got a job, suddenly you have a new leader who leads you to the next neighborhood to slash tires, but instead of saying that you are slashing them because they are a$$holes he says you are slashing them because they are jerks, and he gets more kids to join in so that more tires can be slashed more effectively.

Then your friend spouts off, "Thank Gawd we're not slashing tires anymore!" and you say, "Amen!" Everybody looks at you both like you are insane as you take the knife and slash the next tire.

Later when somebody points out how stupid that you sounded when you said that, you justify it by saying, "But his rhetoric is better and that means he's trying to put a stop to it."