OBAMA THE WAR MONGER!!!

We havent invaded Libya.

We also are not intervening in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, were democracy protesters are being abused and killed. Oil rules all.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
We havent invaded Libya.

We also are not intervening in Saudi Arabia or Bahrain, were democracy protesters are being abused and killed. Oil rules all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! We haven't envaded Lybia???

Tell that to the folks watching American Cruise and Tomahawk missiles flying over their heads to reach their target.

Good one dit... Thanks for proving my point!! ROLMMFAO!!!

I laid out my personal misgivings back in this thread last weekend. I have a big problem with the fact that Obama didn't go to Congress first, though it has to be said that Congress doesn't need the president's permission to call for a vote, so in some ways this is congressional abdication of responsibility as much as it is a presidential power grab.

I've kept my criticism muted in past few days mostly because it's hard to know exactly what's going on and I'm still hopeful that I'm wrong about this conflict and our involvement will be as short and limited as we've all been told. But I didn't support this action because I think experience should have taught us by now that once we get militarily involved in another country's affairs, the reasons start multiplying for why we can't leave and have to escalate or at least keep pouring in resources indefinitely.

quote:

Originally posted by TheMeInTeam:
I laid out my personal misgivings back in this thread last weekend. I have a big problem with the fact that Obama didn't go to Congress first, though it has to be said that Congress doesn't need the president's permission to call for a vote, so in some ways this is congressional abdication of responsibility as much as it is a presidential power grab.

I've kept my criticism muted in past few days mostly because it's hard to know exactly what's going on and I'm still hopeful that I'm wrong about this conflict and our involvement will be as short and limited as we've all been told. But I didn't support this action because I think experience should have taught us by now that once we get militarily involved in another country's affairs, the reasons start multiplying for why we can't leave and have to escalate or at least keep pouring in resources indefinitely.

You are correct. I disliked the notion of envading Iraq, but that dislike was muted by 9/11, as I think many folks felt. At that time folks were very nervous about any possibility that we would have to go through another tragedy like that again so we gave a pass on it. But there is nothing here but a dictator treating his slaves badly. This happens every day all around the world. This was an odd move by Obama. He isn't gonna make friends of the right or independents and is gonna pi$$ off his radical left base. I found it odd that I was in agreement with the co-founder of "Code Pink" when she was talking about this in an interview with O'Reilly last night. However, dispite her accurate response to the issue(hypocrisy of how Bush and Obama are viewed), I don't see the radical protests from her group against Barry that we saw against W. Or at least we aren't seeing the Barry lovin media talk about it if it is going on.

You are able to recognize the difference in 200,000 troops and contractors invading and occupying a country versus shooting a few hundred missiles and flying sorties with 12 ground attack airplanes, arent you?

Remember, Congress gave BushIIe the power to do whatever was necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, things like warrantless wiretaps on American citizens by the CIA. OBama has that power now.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
You are able to recognize the difference in 200,000 troops and contractors invading and occupying a country versus shooting a few hundred missiles and flying sorties with 12 ground attack airplanes, arent you?

Remember, Congress gave BushIIe the power to do whatever was necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, things like warrantless wiretaps on American citizens by the CIA. OBama has that power now.

So you are 100% sure that Barry isn't gonna send ground troops? Okie dokie...

As for me knowing the difference, absolutely I do, but are you saying that citizens of Lybia care about that difference when a missile stamped "USAF" comes flying over their heads, then hearing the BOOM!!! that follows soon there after??? Keep trying there dit, maybe you can mask your hypocrisy on this issue for a few more posts. lmao!!

BushIIe was wrong. OBama was wrong. The USA has no business interfering in the internal conflicts of other nations. The WTC was destroyed by 20 guys with $10 worth of weapons, that had no allegiance to Astan or Iraq, they were actually mostly Saudi. To this day, the Saudis have refused to provide all the intel they have on the hijackers, and the US has invested $2-3trillion in attempting to kill the 1200 original al Qaeda members, that now mostly reside in Somalia.

Peter, the part you fail to highlight is the fact that the liberal diehards called Bush a thug warmonger and said it was "all about the oil", when in reality Obama's beef with Libya is all about the oil, especially that sold to the French and Europeans, yet he is disguising it as a "humanitarian aid project"....haha.....only a moron would believe that. And Dittohead, what is the difference is sending a $1M cruise missile slamming into a building and putting troops on the ground? In reality, both are acts of war, there is no difference other than the endangerment of American troops which is something I do not want to see in this situation.
Face it, Obama is no better than Bush or Clinton, nor anyone else put in that office who does not have the balls to make up his or her own mind and stop listening to their retarded administrative appointees.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
BushIIe was wrong. OBama was wrong. The USA has no business interfering in the internal conflicts of other nations. The WTC was destroyed by 20 guys with $10 worth of weapons, that had no allegiance to Astan or Iraq, they were actually mostly Saudi. To this day, the Saudis have refused to provide all the intel they have on the hijackers, and the US has invested $2-3trillion in attempting to kill the 1200 original al Qaeda members, that now mostly reside in Somalia.

GREAT JOB DIT!!! You decided continuing to mask hypocrisy was the wrong approach and spoke unbiased truth. Now, was that so hard??? lol

A large component of the US military mission is to maintain a stable worldwide oil market. If the supply of oil to the USA was to end today, the resulting chaos would be debilitating to the US economy. Thats why we give billion of foreign aid to countries that really dont need it. Thats why we maintain 700 foreign military installations. Thats why we spend $600billion per year, a 100% increase from 2001.

And THIS is the difference between a sane, rational democrat and a rabid right wing republican.
I DON'T agree with Obama on whatever this "exercise" is in Libya, as do a lot of OTHER democrats.
We are not indoctrinated to GOOSE STEP with the "party" line as are the rethugliteacons.

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:
And THIS is the difference between a sane, rational democrat and a rabid right wing republican.
I DON'T agree with Obama on whatever this "exercise" is in Libya, as do a lot of OTHER democrats.
We are not indoctrinated to GOOSE STEP with the "party" line as are the rethugliteacons.

See, the problem is rockie, is that you have not started ONE THREAD talking about the "hypocrisy" of Barry Obama? Why is that?

WAIT!!! I know... If a republican does or says anything you can possible construe as "hypocritical", you'll do your best to out them and bash them relentlessly. But when your King Barry here, TRAMPLES on the "peace and love" garbage he spewed so that simpletons like you would vote for him, you are mute.

See rockie, if you truely were that "sane, rational demo" you claimed to be in that post, you would post your drivel attacking Obama for this obvious show of hypocrisy instead of that moronic post about NASA you have floating on this forum. Sorry bud...Hypocrisy, thou name art rocky... LOL

You right-wingers make me dizzy. Last week, in the thread title "Barack Obama weakest president in history", you were all complaining because he "wasn't doing anything about Libya". Someone even said they thought Libya was an imenent threat to America.

Most of us Dems wanted the US to stay out of it. So NOW you agree with us?!

quote:

Originally posted by Mr.Dittohead:
A large component of the US military mission is to maintain a stable worldwide oil market. If the supply of oil to the USA was to end today, the resulting chaos would be debilitating to the US economy. Thats why we give billion of foreign aid to countries that really dont need it. Thats why we maintain 700 foreign military installations. Thats why we spend $600billion per year, a 100% increase from 2001.

And alot of that could end if we would do some things to decrease our dependency on foreign oil. Such as increase our drilling here, or help support a NG system that would benefit drivers. Instead the GReat Obama is in Brazil trying to get them to increase their drilling efforts.

quote:

Originally posted by Peter Rielly:

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:
And THIS is the difference between a sane, rational democrat and a rabid right wing republican.
I DON'T agree with Obama on whatever this "exercise" is in Libya, as do a lot of OTHER democrats.
We are not indoctrinated to GOOSE STEP with the "party" line as are the rethugliteacons.

See, the problem is rockie, is that you have not started ONE THREAD talking about the "hypocrisy" of Barry Obama? Why is that?

WAIT!!! I know... If a republican does or says anything you can possible construe as "hypocritical", you'll do your best to out them and bash them relentlessly. But when your King Barry here, TRAMPLES on the "peace and love" garbage he spewed so that simpletons like you would vote for him, you are mute.

See rockie, if you truely were that "sane, rational demo" you claimed to be in that post, you would post your drivel attacking Obama for this obvious show of hypocrisy instead of that moronic post about NASA you have floating on this forum. Sorry bud...Hypocrisy, thou name art rocky... LOL

Dayumm Rocky....I think you been served.....haha

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
You right-wingers make me dizzy. Last week, in the thread title "Barack Obama weakest president in history", you were all complaining because he "wasn't doing anything about Libya". Someone even said they thought Libya was an imenent threat to America.

Most of us Dems wanted the US to stay out of it. So NOW you agree with us?!

No, I do not think I agree with you. My problem was Obama made a big point of supporting the rebels, yet he waited till more than half of them were killed by Libyan forces before he decided to respond. Then he basically responds, making us take the lead in a fight that we really should just be supporting. If you are going to rule, do it decisively and stop *****footing around.

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:
And THIS is the difference between a sane, rational democrat and a rabid right wing republican.
I DON'T agree with Obama on whatever this "exercise" is in Libya, as do a lot of OTHER democrats.
We are not indoctrinated to GOOSE STEP with the "party" line as are the rethugliteacons.

Whats the difference? A rational democrat has to be drug to war by a woman? Either way it's still war.

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
You right-wingers make me dizzy. Last week, in the thread title "Barack Obama weakest president in history", you were all complaining because he "wasn't doing anything about Libya". Someone even said they thought Libya was an imenent threat to America.

Most of us Dems wanted the US to stay out of it. So NOW you agree with us?!

#1...I didn't think we should be a part of this mess in Lybia.

#2...That was not the point. The point is the hypocrisy of the CONSTANT BADGERING BY LIBS ABOUT BUSH BEING A WAR MONGER, YET NOW IT'S CRICKETS CHIRPING IN THE NIGHT!!

That's it O. I just want it to swing both ways. If you hate Bush for attacking a country that never attacked America, then why do we not hear that hate about Barry from your side of the isle?

quote:

#2...That was not the point. The point is the hypocrisy of the CONSTANT BADGERING BY LIBS ABOUT BUSH BEING A WAR MONGER, YET NOW IT'S CRICKETS CHIRPING IN THE NIGHT!!

I made this point the other day. Where is code pink? All of these groups are just liberals they don't actually believe in anti-war, or woman's rights, or whatever the cause anymore. The are simply tools like rocky.

Read the other thread! You'll see that we libs are against this! We were before, and we are now.

quote:

Read the other thread! You'll see that we libs are against this! We were before, and we are now.

Really because I haven't seen code pink interrupting Obama speeches.

which all comes down to something i've been saying for years.

politicans all lie.
period.
politicans do what they want regardless of what their 'party' wants.

if you think your guy hasn't lied himself blue to get his butt in the seat, you a a class A fool.

( i don't direct this at obama. or bush. no one running for any office is an exception to this rule. we need to throw them ALL out and scrap the entire system and start over - with more than just 2 choices this time, hard term limits, and congressional pay raises to be decided by a popular vote held in the state they represent.

but that's juts my opinion

quote:

Originally posted by Ronnie P.:
Really because I haven't seen code pink interrupting Obama speeches.

http://www.codepink4peace.org/article.php?id=5755

It hasn't even been a week yet. Just give them a chance and I'm sure they'll find a way to be annoying and unhelpful in front of cameras before too long.

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
You right-wingers make me dizzy. Last week, in the thread title "Barack Obama weakest president in history", you were all complaining because he "wasn't doing anything about Libya". Someone even said they thought Libya was an imenent threat to America.

Most of us Dems wanted the US to stay out of it. So NOW you agree with us?!

O No, this is what was said in the thread you are referring to. It was by "team" and I think you may have mistook what he said:

"Obviously it can't be argued that there's an imminent threat to the US from Libya, so will we get any democratic say in this through our elected representatives in Congress? Or does the president have the power to unilaterally launch the nation into war?"

Now I consider myself conservative on most issues of fiscal responsibility and not a "right winger" and I also realize you were not talking to me. I just think you mis-understood the post.

While I am not an Obama supporter, I would like him to have the testicular fortitude to stand firm on the issue. Not maybe, not sorta, not kinda, and get all your advisors on the same page. I understand advisors can have different opinions, but when they do, they should know to shut the heck up. My guess is, the advisors didn't know Obama's stance and I am betting they still don't. I don't think they get in the same room together, much less have the same opinion.

Again, not dis-respecting your opinion, I think you constantly show class in this forum, more than I am able to do myself sometimes ( mostly with Rocky), but I don't think we all fit in that "right winger" category just because we disagree with "left winger" concepts. Have a good day.

Actually, THIS is what I was thinking of. A quote from Winston Niles Rumford:

Posted 18 March 2011 10:54 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheMeInTeam:

Candidate Obama: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."


Is total chaos in North Africa and the Middle East not an actual or imminent threat to the nation?

quote:

Originally posted by O No!:
Actually, THIS is what I was thinking of. A quote from Winston Niles Rumford:

Posted 18 March 2011 10:54 PM Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TheMeInTeam:

Candidate Obama: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."


Is total chaos in North Africa and the Middle East not an actual or imminent threat to the nation?

I saw that question and assumed you were referring to the previous statement and not this question.

I think the "Humanitarian" aid concept is a sham. Why aren't we flying the skies of every civil war on the planet? Our leaders pick the ones that benefit us, usually, not always, but almost always.

quote:

Originally posted by LE89:

I think the "Humanitarian" aid concept is a sham. Why aren't we flying the skies of every civil war on the planet? Our leaders pick the ones that benefit us, usually, not always, but almost always.

So you are disagreeing with the statements of Newt Gingrich on March 7th about US involvement BEFORE there was actual "involvement".
I am doing a "spoiler alert" on tommorrows republican hypocrite of the day.

The Libya affair appears to be a dither's construct. Statements are made, then changed, or the opposite stated, with no explanation. Objectives are unclear, if they exist.

Now, instead of war, its called a kinetic military operation -- straight out of 1984. Obama truly is a doubleplusgood duckspeaker.

For those not familiar with such, if the Department of Agriculture announces a new tasty snack called, Soylent Green, don't eat it.

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:
And THIS is the difference between a sane, rational democrat and a rabid right wing republican.
I DON'T agree with Obama on whatever this "exercise" is in Libya, as do a lot of OTHER democrats.
We are not indoctrinated to GOOSE STEP with the "party" line as are the rethugliteacons.

You need to get a better insult. Since 1945, the two major powers using the goose step were the Soviets and the red Chinese, lefties.

Here's the Soviet Army at play:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rocky:
And THIS is the difference between a sane, rational democrat and a rabid right wing republican.
I DON'T agree with Obama on whatever this "exercise" is in Libya, as do a lot of OTHER democrats.
We are not indoctrinated to GOOSE STEP with the "party" line as are the rethugliteacons.

You need to get a better insult. Since 1945, the two major powers using the goose step were the Soviets and the red Chinese, lefties.

Here's the Soviet Army at play:[/QUOTE

Mr Elitorventer:
The CHINESE own us.
There really are no "soviets" Just the sad Russian army.
I was using the historical Nazi for the Germans.
You know this, why OH WHY are you stooping to the level of Glenn Beck????????????????

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:

quote:

Originally posted by LE89:

I think the "Humanitarian" aid concept is a sham. Why aren't we flying the skies of every civil war on the planet? Our leaders pick the ones that benefit us, usually, not always, but almost always.

So you are disagreeing with the statements of Newt Gingrich on March 7th about US involvement BEFORE there was actual "involvement".
I am doing a "spoiler alert" on tommorrows republican hypocrite of the day.

I am going to point out some important words for you that I used when I formed my sentences. Please read again, concentrate real hard. Every, leaders, amost, always, not, etc. You may want to quit college, you are definitely not getting your money's worth.

quote:

Originally posted by rocky:

quote:

Originally posted by elinterventor01:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by rocky:
And THIS is the difference between a sane, rational democrat and a rabid right wing republican.
I DON'T agree with Obama on whatever this "exercise" is in Libya, as do a lot of OTHER democrats.
We are not indoctrinated to GOOSE STEP with the "party" line as are the rethugliteacons.

You need to get a better insult. Since 1945, the two major powers using the goose step were the Soviets and the red Chinese, lefties.

Here's the Soviet Army at play:[/QUOTE

Mr Elitorventer:
The CHINESE own us.
There really are no "soviets" Just the sad Russian army.
I was using the historical Nazi for the Germans.
You know this, why OH WHY are you stooping to the level of Glenn Beck????????????????

Rocky,

Because you are young, inexperienced, and a product of a liberal education, I show forbearance. Comparing Republicans to the mass murdering NSDAP is outrageous. And, you know it! If you make comparisons, don't be surprised if it comes back at you. I could invoke Godwin's, but decided not to. What beck has to do with my comparison is beyond me.

As for the Chinese, NO! They own 1/14th of the national debt in the form of nicely engraved Treasury bonds. Which, after maturity, may be exchanged for nicely engraved US currency.

Lord, I feel like I just kicked a puppy for piddling on the rug. Poor dumb little critter doesn't know any better.