Osama bin Laden down?

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Sun May 01, 2011 8:14 pm

Would it make Obama a shoe-in for 2012?

SKiNnTo · Post by **SKiNnTo** » Sun May 01, 2011 8:23 pm

I would say so Mr. AK

mogers · Post by **mogers** » Sun May 01, 2011 8:30 pm

Not only did he roast the Donald, now he kills Osama. GG

Swiss · Post by **Swiss** » Sun May 01, 2011 8:39 pm

well lets see....having ratings lower than bush had at this point is never a good sign

hildebrand · Post by **hildebrand** » Sun May 01, 2011 9:22 pm

also kinda interesting how this type of info comes out right when there's talk of the shooped birth certificate.

Rambizzle · Post by **Rambizzle** » Sun May 01, 2011 9:49 pm

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Sun May 01, 2011 9:56 pm

Swiss wrote:well lets see....having ratings lower than bush had at this point is never a good sign

I think he's just shy of 50%, actually, which is significantly higher than Bush.

hildebrand wrote:also kinda interesting how this type of info comes out right when there's talk of the shooped birth certificate.

I hope you didn't type that without your tin foil hat.

Rambizzle · Post by **Rambizzle** » Sun May 01, 2011 10:04 pm

I keep seeing people say "why is obama getting credit for this, bush started it"

lol... obama can have credit for a failing economy but he can't have credit for this?

acetamino · Post by **acetamino** » Sun May 01, 2011 10:06 pm

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/05 ... bbottabad/

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Sun May 01, 2011 10:11 pm

Rambizzle wrote:I keep seeing people say "why is obama getting credit for this, bush started it"

lol... obama can have credit for a failing economy but he can't have credit for this?

Obama can't have nice things.

Rambizzle · Post by **Rambizzle** » Sun May 01, 2011 10:14 pm

Swiss · Post by **Swiss** » Sun May 01, 2011 10:57 pm

well lets see....having ratings lower now than bush had received at same the point in his presidency is never a good sign

editted for clarification

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Sun May 01, 2011 11:04 pm

Swiss wrote:
well lets see....having ratings lower now than bush had received at same the point in his presidency is never a good sign
editted for clarification

This would be the equivalent of 2003 for Bush, so I'm not particularly surprised by that.

Swiss · Post by **Swiss** » Sun May 01, 2011 11:20 pm

hmm by 2003 the popularity from 911 was wearing off and the iraq war began, not so sure people were jumping up and down with enthusiasm then.

but in any case, i dont see this being a major factor in the election.

good to see that guy finally dead tho

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Sun May 01, 2011 11:26 pm

Swiss wrote:hmm by 2003 the popularity from 911 was wearing off and the iraq war began, not so sure people were jumping up and down with enthusiasm then.

but in any case, i dont see this being a major factor in the election.

good to see that guy finally dead tho

The popularity from 9-11 was dying down emotionally, but it was still considered bad to oppose the president even in 2003. Not to mention Obama was handed a country in shambles, whereas Bush was not.

The war(s) will still be an issue in 2012, undoubtedly. This will come up, and it will still make him look good. Whether it will sway an entire election, doubt it. But considering how much America hates both sides of the aisle right now, this certainly delivers an edge to the left.

This was a war that was more supported by the right, and now it's Obama's administration in power when enemy #1 is killed?

lowcarb · Post by **lowcarb** » Sun May 01, 2011 11:37 pm

England, we see your wedding and raise you a funeral.

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Sun May 01, 2011 11:41 pm

Dang, John Clanin sure didn't waste any time...

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon May 02, 2011 12:48 am

Despite whatever Obama's approval rating is right now by some inadequate poll, he's a shoo in for re-election just based on the horrible slate of Republican candidates. Granted, there are a few sleeper Republican candidates that haven't surfaced yet because they're too smart to get mixed up in the side show this early. But the real front runner is likely Mitt Romney and he's hampered by unsuccessful runs in the past , his religion, and his healthcare successes in Mass. that will ironically be used against him in an election. He'll get way too torn up before even getting to Obama.

Like him or not Obama is getting a 2nd term.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon May 02, 2011 12:48 am

And who cares about Osama bin Laden? Most overrated villain ever.

motive · Post by **motive** » Mon May 02, 2011 1:04 am

im surprised he was actually alive all this time

i guess the middle of tyhe fucking desert has adequate dialysis equipment available for decades at a time

kirk · Post by **kirk** » Mon May 02, 2011 2:06 am

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Mon May 02, 2011 2:24 am

Swiss wrote:well lets see....having ratings lower than bush had at this point is never a good sign

Bush managed to squander the highest polled approval rating (lol thanks 9/11) at a recognised 86 - 91% rating (depending if you used Gallup, Pew, or Rasmussen) down to a 48% rating before his first term ended. While in theory you're right, Bush had a political catalyst that any power hungry president would be envious of. Bush cashed in and then frittered it all away.

The real irony is Obama's approval is low within his own party, but responds pretty well when polled by Republican leaning organisations - Fox and Rasmussen come to mind.

Bush's approval ratings during his first term were an anomaly given how much he "benefited" from the 9/11 terrorist attacks and a country's patriotic outpouring response. Bush was untouchable for almost 2 years in the form of criticism and policy decision-making.

He still ranks 7th out of 11 in post-war presidents and left office with a sub-25% approval rating. His average rating ties him with Nixon.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ Pretty easy breakdown of the major polling outfits. Obligatory realclearpolitics is nonpartisan.

I'm not touting Obama. I'm quite disappointed with him. You're right if you simply look at the numbers without any form of context, but you're not going to get far with that line of reasoning. The Republican Party has zero identifiable leadership, legitimate candidates (at least at this point), fracturing within the Tea Party base (shocked people who make less than $50,000 a year would suddenly realise big business interests are actually fist fucking them at the dinner table), and a general malaise towards the party bodes well for Obama.

TL;DR Obama is likely fine and unless a candidate that isn't polarizing to his own party base comes forward but still can reach to the growing number of non-affiliated American public, then re-election, at this point in time looks fairly certain for Obama.

james- · Post by **james-** » Mon May 02, 2011 6:32 am

Wait, we were still pretending to look for him? hehehehehehe But now aren't we going to have to find another scape goat for "terrorism"?

Obama will get re elected because the majority of people who will vote this coming election will be just as uneducated and uninformed as the mass waves of dorks who have flooded the polls with Bush votes. That's how it works out, and that's how we always end up with some asshole who's looking out for private interests before the good of the people and country.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:14 am

i like how Pakistan didnt know he was there... in a compound 2x as large as anything else in the area, close to the military academy, generally a cactus in the rain forest you know?

love sending billions to Pakistan so they can send it right back at us in IEDs.

kellen_rust · Post by **kellen_rust** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:17 am

im pretty middle of the road when it comes to politics. dont love Obama, dont hate him. but fuck, i thought he was the super-liberal that was supposed to get us the fuck out of Afghanistan/Iraq. am i the only one that's frustrated he didn't live up to that promise yet? seriously, i got multiple friends fighting, putting their life on the line, and i was told they would be coming home. what's the fucking hold up? who cares if the country goes to shit, falls into civil war. i sure don't. just bring them home, not tomorrow, not in a month, a year - but now.

he criticizes bush endlessly for the war, and then approves a 30,000 troop surge. frustrating. i never thought id say this but he seems very bush-esque in his foreign policy.

kellen_rust · Post by **kellen_rust** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:20 am

unpro wrote:i like how Pakistan didnt know he was there... in a compound 2x as large as anything else in the area, close to the military academy, generally a cactus in the rain forest you know?

love sending billions to Pakistan so they can send it right back at us in IEDs.

god, dont even get me started on pakistan. has anyone read Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001? (long title loL) that book frustrated me to no end. really eye opening.

short hand for those who hate to read: we fully funded the mujaheddin for multiple years - we handed the radical islamists the middle east via millions, billion in cash and weapons because we hate communism that much!

also, has anyone read Game Change? kind of off topic but man, what a fucking book. presidential elections are crazy. dont worry it will be a movie soon for all you anti-reading d-bags that have caused my precious Borders to go out of business.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:22 am

in pretty much everything he does you mean. the only difference between him and bush so far, is the health care BS he passed. everything else has stayed the same. patriot act is still going, gitmo is still open, wars are still going, we are still in a depression - fuck what his idiot advisers say.

linuslolz · Post by **linuslolz** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:26 am

kellen_rust wrote: also, has anyone read Game Change? kind of off topic but man, what a fucking book. presidential elections are crazy. dont worry it will be a movie soon for all you anti-reading d-bags that have caused my precious Borders to go out of business.

That book is awfull.

kellen_rust · Post by **kellen_rust** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:29 am

linuslolz wrote:
kellen_rust wrote: also, has anyone read Game Change? kind of off topic but man, what a fucking book. presidential elections are crazy. dont worry it will be a movie soon for all you anti-reading d-bags that have caused my precious Borders to go out of business.
That book is awfull.

don't describe your position too much.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:31 am

i dont tend to read most books people have written in the past ~10/15 years, simply because all of that info has been readily available in other sources. all those books do is put a personal spin on a factual event. most books are written by people who have far to much political desire to leave facts as facts without dolling them up. we have always supported parties that have come back to fuck us. especially in the middle east. we do it a lot in central and south america as well.

Last book i read that had anything to do with politics and war was About Face. good book though.

kellen_rust · Post by **kellen_rust** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:32 am

Rambizzle wrote:

ive seen a lot of great gif's in my day but fuck, this one had me laughing soo hard.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:33 am

I read all the Harry Potter books too.

fuck you, i wanted to double post this one.

kellen_rust · Post by **kellen_rust** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:35 am

unpro wrote:i dont tend to read most books people have written in the past ~10/15 years, simply because all of that info has been readily available in other sources. all those books do is put a personal spin on a factual event. most books are written by people who have far to much political desire to leave facts as facts without dolling them up. we have always supported parties that have come back to fuck us. especially in the middle east. we do it a lot in central and south america as well.

Last book i read that had anything to do with politics and war was About Face. good book though.

i dont read many political books myself. Obama's Wars by Bob Woodward is the last one i'm going to pick up. i'm a true-crime man through and through: Helter Skelter, In Cold Blood, Columbine, The Stranger Beside Me, The Night Stalker, The Ice Man, Black Dahlia Avenger, Most Evil, The Butcher, Murder Machine - a few of my favies.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:37 am

i tend to read history, some economic stuff occasionally, and a lot of science fiction.

linuslolz · Post by **linuslolz** » Mon May 02, 2011 9:39 am

I just hate books about politics.
History books and thrillers/crime is my favorite styles of books.

kellen_rust · Post by **kellen_rust** » Mon May 02, 2011 10:11 am

Stranger in a Strange Land is one of the only sci-fi i've read. and Starship Troopers. I thought it was really funny when i learned Terran came from SST, being im a huge starcraft fan.

i started out in fiction though, really love Vonnegut. he really got me into reading. Slaughterhouse 5, Breakfast of Champions, The Sirens of Titan, Galapagos.

good ol' Billy Pilgrim getting unstuck in time.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Mon May 02, 2011 10:50 am

kellen_rust wrote:im pretty middle of the road when it comes to politics. dont love Obama, dont hate him. but fuck, i thought he was the super-liberal that was supposed to get us the fuck out of Afghanistan/Iraq. am i the only one that's frustrated he didn't live up to that promise yet? seriously, i got multiple friends fighting, putting their life on the line, and i was told they would be coming home. what's the fucking hold up? who cares if the country goes to shit, falls into civil war. i sure don't. just bring them home, not tomorrow, not in a month, a year - but now.

he criticizes bush endlessly for the war, and then approves a 30,000 troop surge. frustrating. i never thought id say this but he seems very bush-esque in his foreign policy.

He campaigned on increasing our presence in Afghanistan. Like, I don't know why people who voted for him or aren't out-rightly hostile towards him don't get this.

I don't know how people can honestly say "we just pull out" after fucking over a place either. It's already a travesty we invaded, but what good can come of destroying any infrastructure then just bailing? None. Iraq can make all of these grand proclamations but the leaders know the only thing standing between them and an invasion by Iran is the U.S. military at this point.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Mon May 02, 2011 10:58 am

So mg you're pretty much saying that you agree with me. Great minds think alike.

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Mon May 02, 2011 11:28 am

i would like to get the fuck out, but i also know we really cant.

either way, i dont see why anyone is surprised obama has kept the exact same policies bush enacted. they give more power to the federal government, and thats what any president wants, on both sides of our broken 2 party system.

i still find it funny how we proclaim to help spread democracy and freedom around the world, when we have no real democracy in the US, and an erosion of freedoms on a daily basis.

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Mon May 02, 2011 12:11 pm

Mitch is the only one making sense.

Sure, these are complex issues. Which is why you can't dumb them down to incredibly simplified ideologies (e.g. tea party), on either side of the isle.

IMO, we shouldn't be policing the world, but I also totally understand how we find ourselves in the position which we are (and you can't go backwards). I'm a pacifist by nature, but I also think that at times, while rare, violence is absolutely necessary, and warranted. We shouldn't spend near as much of our resources on defense, and people who make exponentially more money than 98% of the population should pay a pretty sizable chunk back to the society that made it possible for them to become so wealthy. We shouldn't be throwing keggers in front of the white house because we shot a mass murdering ass hole in the head. We are better than that, it's what makes us, not them.

Our government should be big, active in our daily lives, and at times, powerful. But, it should also be efficient, just, well-designed, accessible, and all-inclusive.

It's an incredibly complex world with incredibly complex challenges; social, economic, political, and cultural alike.

There are no simple, bumper sticker solutions.

seanality · Post by **seanality** » Mon May 02, 2011 12:58 pm

Here are all the people partying:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/melismashable/1 ... th-from-ar

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Mon May 02, 2011 1:27 pm

It is really easy, I think, to say we shouldn't be policing the world and its problems. It makes a lot of sense and it sure would seem like the easiest solution too.

However, what is the actual alternative? The world is the smallest it has ever been. Instant communication, economic inter-reliance, treaty obligations, human rights, etc. all pose legitimate reasons why we cannot simply walk away from the table. It isn't like the world goes along hunky-dory without a global hegemon there to ensure people play nice.

It is a damnable position, but what is the actual alternative - both domestically and internationally - if the United States walks away form the table. The truth irony I have found is, just like in a domestic order, you are never going to find 100% consensus or agreement about what should be done. However, you do find a lot of concurrence and large majorities. The United States needs to be more pragmatic about the international complexities of the world and it needs to be more thoughtful in how it goes about its business. The people I study with from Canada, Germany, the UK, and the rest of Europe always at the end of the day say they're happier the United States does the shit it does because we're not Russia or China. That is the alternative when you talk about the United States choosing to be less internationally involved I think, and neither one of those states has any appreciation for human rights or economic fairness.

We should be concerned with what we can be doing better and abiding by international norms. However, there aren't a lot of alternatives http://www.tnr.com/article/crossings/87 ... -europe-us to be had at the moment. Europe has literally given up any support for an international regime. It is crap, but that's just how it is.

I just think it is food for thought. It is easy to say we should just stop doing X, Y, or Z. I mean, it is easy to say we should have never gone to Iraq or Afghanistan. But the criticism actually never stops there. It says that because we made some bad choices there, then we should totally isolate ourselves internationally and just do things differently. I'm not sure that's a practical response.

`NG · Post by **`NG** » Mon May 02, 2011 1:28 pm

isolation2k12

unpro · Post by **unpro** » Mon May 02, 2011 1:47 pm

regretably sears, humanity is prone to succumb to greed and violence to allow a large and intrusive government. nor should we ever allow it. there is no reason for a government to be able to regulate how humanity behaves outside of basic morals and a judicial system. keeping people from being able to freely act on there own desires and wishes, is what creates countries that either create war for conquest, or end up in civil war.

personally i think this government is heading down that path at a rapid rate, and without some sort of external or natural event to stop us from this path, we are headed towards an eventual second civil war or a third world war.

also, fuck nato. without the US nato is powerless, and they know it. the only european country that has a remote capability to create power like the US is germany, or surprisingly to some, france.

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Mon May 02, 2011 1:50 pm

mg_ wrote:It is really easy, I think, to say we shouldn't be policing the world and its problems. It makes a lot of sense and it sure would seem like the easiest solution too.

However, what is the actual alternative? The world is the smallest it has ever been. Instant communication, economic inter-reliance, treaty obligations, human rights, etc. all pose legitimate reasons why we cannot simply walk away from the table. It isn't like the world goes along hunky-dory without a global hegemon there to ensure people play nice.

It is a damnable position, but what is the actual alternative - both domestically and internationally - if the United States walks away form the table. The truth irony I have found is, just like in a domestic order, you are never going to find 100% consensus or agreement about what should be done. However, you do find a lot of concurrence and large majorities. The United States needs to be more pragmatic about the international complexities of the world and it needs to be more thoughtful in how it goes about its business. The people I study with from Canada, Germany, the UK, and the rest of Europe always at the end of the day say they're happier the United States does the shit it does because we're not Russia or China. That is the alternative when you talk about the United States choosing to be less internationally involved I think, and neither one of those states has any appreciation for human rights or economic fairness.

We should be concerned with what we can be doing better and abiding by international norms. However, there aren't a lot of alternatives http://www.tnr.com/article/crossings/87 ... -europe-us to be had at the moment. Europe has literally given up any support for an international regime. It is crap, but that's just how it is.

I just think it is food for thought. It is easy to say we should just stop doing X, Y, or Z. I mean, it is easy to say we should have never gone to Iraq or Afghanistan. But the criticism actually never stops there. It says that because we made some bad choices there, then we should totally isolate ourselves internationally and just do things differently. I'm not sure that's a practical response.

I agree with you 100%. My point was that my personal ideologies often conflict with the harsh reality of our complex problems. I don't like the position that we are in, but I admit that there is no alternative. In a perfect world. we shouldn't be out playing cops and robbers for the rest of the world. But, I totally understand why that is the case, why it is necessary, and in such cases support it. It is not, after all, a perfect world.

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Mon May 02, 2011 2:07 pm

unpro wrote:personally i think this government is heading down that path at a rapid rate, and without some sort of external or natural event to stop us from this path, we are headed towards an eventual second civil war or a third world war.

This is what I'm talking about. You've interpreted such a huge array of complex social, economic, and political problems and dumbed it down to an oversimplified and emotional ideology (no offense intended).

It's easy to become emotional in this arena of thought, and fear is an incredibly powerful emotion. But, these are problems with objective deficiencies and solutions, as arcane as they may be.

There are far too many that do a disservice to civilized discourse (e.g. tea party), by not recognizing that they are eliciting an emotional response to their perspective on perceived ideologies, and end up making asses of themselves in the grand scheme of things.

unpro wrote:also, fuck nato. without the US nato is powerless, and they know it. the only european country that has a remote capability to create power like the US is germany, or surprisingly to some, france.

This is a good example of such responses, in that this argument is a fallacy based on emotive reasoning, but ultimately, just factually incorrect.

Jb_ · Post by **Jb_** » Mon May 02, 2011 3:09 pm

politics and dod dont mix.

mg_ · Post by **mg_** » Mon May 02, 2011 3:16 pm

unpro wrote:regretably sears, humanity is prone to succumb to greed and violence to allow a large and intrusive government. nor should we ever allow it.

I disagree. The alternative is to let greedy violent people to bounce around in society without any overarching, imposed social order from the top.

The thing about democracy is it requires active and knowledgeable participation by the population. It doesn't work if you take the attitude that we let our neighbors do it. It begins by demanding more of the people we elect and demanding more of ourselves. Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others. It has its downfalls. It is deliberate and slow as consensus is built.

People are very self absorbed and greedy. They also lack the foresight immediately to events. They also fall backwards onto their prejudices and misknowledge.

Part of making sure our government provides services without breaking the social contract is as much our responsibility as the members elected to government.

there is no reason for a government to be able to regulate how humanity behaves outside of basic morals and a judicial system. keeping people from being able to freely act on there own desires and wishes, is what creates countries that either create war for conquest, or end up in civil war.

I honestly don't understand what you're saying here. I don't mean that to be mean, but can you elaborate on your argument.

personally i think this government is heading down that path at a rapid rate, and without some sort of external or natural event to stop us from this path, we are headed towards an eventual second civil war or a third world war.

I think this is melodrama drummed up by extremist rhetoric from both sides. You're discounting most of Americans are in the middle, not the nether reaches of politics.

also, fuck nato. without the US nato is powerless, and they know it. the only european country that has a remote capability to create power like the US is germany, or surprisingly to some, france.

Different domestic agendas have shaped our international treaty relationships. However, do not think the United States (both its population and the government) has not enjoyed its dominance over the organization for the first 40 years of its existence. NATO was a pawn of the United States in the Cold War and in the aftermath. The United States garners much legitimacy within the international framework when NATO takes action rather than unilateral U.S. action.

NATO does the U.S.' bidding. I don't think that is a mischaracterization of reality in all sincerity. You should be mad at how we've abused that relationship with faux international consensus building.

Don't forget 'bout Poland, yo.

t`RavE · Post by **t`RavE** » Mon May 02, 2011 3:25 pm

Jb_ wrote:politics and dod dont mix.

Politics and forums don't mix, everyone has an opinion, and generally no matter what anyone says or proves to them, their opinions and ideologies won't change. However, seeing how deeply we penetrated Al-Queda to gain this information is a large step for the intelligence community, and it makes my job and future easier. Shouldn't really be arguing, but instead rejoice and thank those who have risked their lives the past 10 years, and remember those who have paid the ultimate price. Not everyone agrees on the "War on Terror" or maybe even what it means, but at least support those of us who protect freedom and democracy around the world.

Sears · Post by **Sears** » Mon May 02, 2011 3:47 pm

We'll give the "random" forum a chance for a bit. Hopefully you guys can figure out what should go where, or I'll just give it up and put everything back into one again and we'll just have to deal with off topic stuff being mixed in with DoD stuff.