Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Bush Coalition in 2003 supporting military action in Iraq:

Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

Obama Coalition supporting military action in Libya 2011:

United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate

Now I'm waiting for the screams from the leftists on this board calling Obama out for his "rush to war"...

Hey dipshit. There's a glaring difference between this action in Libya and the Iraq war. I'll let you see if you can figure it out.

As a hint, what we're doing in Libya is much more similar to what were were doing in Iraq BEFORE the invasion.

So all he has to do is add a few more and he'll have you're support?

Skjellyfetti wrote:Hey dipshit. There's a glaring difference between this action in Libya and the Iraq war. I'll let you see if you can figure it out.

at the hostility.

There isn't just one glaring difference, there are many, but I'll just hit on a few.

1. Congress signed off on the mission in Iraq.
2. 30 countries supported the action in Iraq compared to 16 that support the mission in Libya.
3. Bush waited 18 months to build the coalition while Obama waited 1 (one) month.

Should I go on?

kalm wrote:So all he has to do is add a few more and he'll have you're support?

I don't care one way or the other. All I'm doing is enjoying the hand wringing back peddling hypocrisy.

Baldy wrote:Bush Coalition in 2003 supporting military action in Iraq:

Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan

Obama Coalition supporting military action in Libya 2011:

United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate

Now I'm waiting for the screams from the leftists on this board calling Obama out for his "rush to war"...

Baldy

Baldy wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Hey dipshit. There's a glaring difference between this action in Libya and the Iraq war. I'll let you see if you can figure it out.

at the hostility.

There isn't just one glaring difference, there are many, but I'll just hit on a few.

1. Congress signed off on the mission in Iraq.
2. 30 countries supported the action in Iraq compared to 16 that support the mission in Libya.
3. Bush waited 18 months to build the coalition while Obama waited 1 (one) month.

Should I go on?

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:So all he has to do is add a few more and he'll have you're support?

I don't care one way or the other. All I'm doing is enjoying the hand wringing back peddling hypocrisy.

I know. In the lead up to Iraq you had nearly 100% conk solidarity with a number of Dems joining the cheer. Today, you have lukewarm support at best from the Dems and the conks reversing engines. Ain't it grand?

Baldy wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Hey dipshit. There's a glaring difference between this action in Libya and the Iraq war. I'll let you see if you can figure it out.

at the hostility.

There isn't just one glaring difference, there are many, but I'll just hit on a few.

1. Congress signed off on the mission in Iraq.
2. 30 countries supported the action in Iraq compared to 16 that support the mission in Libya.
3. Bush waited 18 months to build the coalition while Obama waited 1 (one) month.

Should I go on?

Baldy, you have to stop man............this is just getting ugly.


Its like when your out drinking and two guys get in a fight. One dude is owning the other and beats him unconscious then props his jaw open on a curb and kicks him in the back of the head. You stand there wanting to jump in and stop the guy from murdering the other dude.

Then the guy still standing turns to the crowd and unzips his pants and says "I am not going to ass rape this guy in a gay way, but in a you will never fuck with me again kind of way". Then when hes done he goes into the guys wallet and takes out all the money, hands it to a friend and says bail me out.


Thats the kind of shit I am witnessing in this thread and its gotta stop!

ALPHAGRIZ1 wrote:

Baldy wrote:
at the hostility.

There isn't just one glaring difference, there are many, but I'll just hit on a few.

1. Congress signed off on the mission in Iraq.
2. 30 countries supported the action in Iraq compared to 16 that support the mission in Libya.
3. Bush waited 18 months to build the coalition while Obama waited 1 (one) month.

Should I go on?

Baldy, you have to stop man............this is just getting ugly.


Its like when your out drinking and two guys get in a fight. One dude is owning the other and beats him unconscious then props his jaw open on a curb and kicks him in the back of the head. You stand there wanting to jump in and stop the guy from murdering the other dude.

Then the guy still standing turns to the crowd and unzips his pants and says "I am not going to ass rape this guy in a gay way, but in a you will never fuck with me again kind of way". Then when hes done he goes into the guys wallet and takes out all the money, hands it to a friend and says bail me out.


Thats the kind of shit I am witnessing in this thread and its gotta stop!

That's a damn good line but completely over-played in this thread.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote:
I don't care one way or the other. All I'm doing is enjoying the hand wringing back peddling hypocrisy.

I know. In the lead up to Iraq you had nearly 100% conk solidarity with a number of Dems joining the cheer. Today, you have lukewarm support at best from the Dems and the conks reversing engines. Ain't it grand?

Somewhat, but only the lunatic left like Kucinich and Michael Moore are the ones who are having a hissy fit. Most of the so-called mainstream Donks are on board and providing Obama cover.

And yes, it is grand. Watching KY pop a vein in his neck and calling me a dipshit made my day.

Let me know when we've had ground forces there for 8 years (and counting).

Grizalltheway wrote:Let me know when we've had ground forces there for 8 years (and counting).

If those dipshits hadn't jumped into two wars eight years ago and counting, we'd be sitting pretty for taking that Libyan oil.

Grizalltheway wrote:Let me know when we've had ground forces there for 8 years (and counting).

Ah!

So Iraq and Afghanistan would have been OK provided we were there for a shorter period?

CID1990 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Let me know when we've had ground forces there for 8 years (and counting).

Ah!

So Iraq and Afghanistan would have been OK provided we were there for a shorter period?

Afghanistan would have been OK if our mission had been to Kill bin Laden, declare victory, and go home. Now we're just flushing our future down the toilet.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Ah!

So Iraq and Afghanistan would have been OK provided we were there for a shorter period?

Afghanistan would have been OK if our mission had been to Kill bin Laden, declare victory, and go home. Now we're just flushing our future down the toilet.

This.

Grizalltheway wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Afghanistan would have been OK if our mission had been to Kill bin Laden, declare victory, and go home. Now we're just flushing our future down the toilet.

This.

Sucks.

Does it

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Ah!

So Iraq and Afghanistan would have been OK provided we were there for a shorter period?

Afghanistan would have been OK if our mission had been to Kill bin Laden, declare victory, and go home. Now we're just flushing our future down the toilet.

That's fine and good, but now we are in Libya. What exactly is our mission there? One corner of Obama's mouth says that it is US policy for Momar to go, but the other corner of his mouth says that the purpose of our military involvement isn't to remove Quadaffi from power.

Oh the irony.

Baldy wrote:

houndawg wrote:
Afghanistan would have been OK if our mission had been to Kill bin Laden, declare victory, and go home. Now we're just flushing our future down the toilet.

That's fine and good, but now we are in Libya. What exactly is our mission there? One corner of Obama's mouth says that it is US policy for Momar to go, but the other corner of his mouth says that the purpose of our military involvement isn't to remove Quadaffi from power.

Oh the irony.

The UN resolution was to impose a no-fly zone, not to remove and/or assassinate Qadaffi. But, I'm sure you'd do a better job of juggling the two in Obama's place.

CID1990 wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Let me know when we've had ground forces there for 8 years (and counting).

Ah!

So Iraq and Afghanistan would have been OK provided we were there for a shorter period?

I'm fine with it if we are there for 8 years. We were enforcing a no fly zone in Iraq for around 10 years before the 2003 invasion. That wasn't a huge deal.

I won't be fine with our mission in Libya if we send 150,000+ troops there and 4,000+ troops die. I'll want Obama castrated if he ends up sending in a full invasion force.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Ah!

So Iraq and Afghanistan would have been OK provided we were there for a shorter period?

I'm fine with it if we are there for 8 years. We were enforcing a no fly zone in Iraq for around 10 years before the 2003 invasion. That wasn't a huge deal.

I won't be fine with our mission in Libya if we send 150,000+ troops there and 4,000+ troops die. I'll want Obama castrated if he ends up sending in a full invasion force.

Boy the stance on Iraq sure is softening, huh?

Skjellyfetti wrote:I'm fine with it if we are there for 8 years. We were enforcing a no fly zone in Iraq for around 10 years before the 2003 invasion. That wasn't a huge deal.

I won't be fine with our mission in Libya if we send 150,000+ troops there and 4,000+ troops die. I'll want Obama castrated if he ends up sending in a full invasion force.

I'm sorry, skelly, I must have missed it if you explained it before.

Please clarify a few things...what is it about Afghanistan that you believe we should be there...what is our policy there...and when do you think it would be good to get out?

What is it about Iraq that you believe we should still be there...what is our policy there...and when do you think it would be good to get out?

What is it about Libya that you think we should bomb there...what is our policy there...and when do you think we should stop bombing? And why do you think Obama should continue to say that he wants Q/K-boy out...through political means, economic means, and "other" means...while the UN mandate we are working under says nothing about Q/K-boy having to go?

What is it about Bahrain that you think we shouldn't bomb there, shouldn't help the protect the civilians who are being kille dby an oppressive minority regime...what is our policy there...and when do you think we should stop supporting their brutal regime...if ever?

I just need some help understanding our goals and your support for them. You've avoided similar questions by a couple posters...so maybe it's time you provided some clarification.

...ehhh...fuck y'all.

I'm joining Code Pink...








Hey, wait? Where's Medea Benjamin?



Oh, yeah...

...she no longer supports the U.S. leaving Iraq or Afghanistan until "we" have created a "civil society".

Guess those anti-war hardliners have swallowed the bitter pill of rationalization, now that a Democrat is dropping the bombs.

Is Obomber back from spring break yet?
Seems like the coalition is having some trouble.


• Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
• Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
• Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
• U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
• Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
• Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1HNvrqWrK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;