skellbama's war...going oh so well

[YoUDeeMan]

What Dems here are justifying the Lib response? I may have missed it...

Actually, D1B, what you missed was a large number of posts and threads, started daily by Dems, criticizing the war, linking the number of deaths in each war, and criticizing Obama - even characterizing him as a warmonger. Oh, and you missed the threads, started by Dems on here, calling out the hypocrisy of the silence of their fellow Dems.

Funny you didn't mention that. Even funnier that you aren't starting such threads.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Desperately wanting to believe and figuring anything was better than the last miserable failure that held the office.

Funny, many here consider Obama a miserable failure, and firmly believe he has no shot at reelection. How quickly they forget 2004.

Your forgetting Hussein Obama is just flat out worse than Bush, at least W had balls and some personality. This idiot is like a wheelchaired retard but even more inept. Obama is so bad he make me wish Carter could come back and fu*k up our country again. He did less damage.

All you morons got is Bush cant talk good.

[houndawg]

Funny, many here consider Obama a miserable failure, and firmly believe he has no shot at reelection. How quickly they forget 2004.

Your forgetting Hussein Obama is just flat out worse than Bush, at least W had balls and some personality. This idiot is like a wheelchaired retard but even more inept. Obama is so bad he make me wish Carter could come back and fu*k up our country again. He did less damage.

All you morons got is Bush cant talk good.

Bush is a pussified frat boy cheerleader with a less-than-honorable discharge. Obama would whup his ass every day.

[houndawg]

We get 3.3% of our oil from Angola. 22% of Italy's oil, 16% of France's oil and 13% of Spain's oil comes from Libya. 85% of Libya's oil goes to Europe.

We're fighting a proxy war for the gutless wonders across the pond. They launch a couple token tomahawks and call it a "coalition".

The above is the opinion of the South.

It's the winner's opinion that counts.

[houndawg]

The Cuckmeister's new found pacifism is something to behold. Must have been near a lightning strike and the field effect restarted a synapse or two....

Pacifism? Nope.

Killing bad guys is good...but I'd choose my targets a bit differently than the clowns in charge.

How so?

[YoUDeeMan]

From my point of view, when you've got a known psychopath threatening to murder the population of entire cities in their homes...you've gotta do something(see Rwanda for the consequences of doing nothing). Yes, I realize Saddam wasn't exactly a benevolent father to the people of Iraq, but as far as I know, the no-fly zone we had imposed there largely put a stop to his butchering of the Kurds.

Military force should always be a last resort, and I feel Obama and co. held off on intervening until it became clear that it would turn into a bloodbath if they didn't.

Are you a beaten housewife that defends her man?

Listen to yourself. You are defending something that can't be defended. If you are so concerned about defending citizens, then STFU about Iraq. Maybe Bush went in after WMDs, maybe he didn't. But, he certainly took out a "known psychopath threatening to murder the population of entire cities in their homes.", which, by your measure is as good a reason to attack a country as any.

In your, "the ends justify the means" world Bush should be your hero. Except you foolishly let your politics get in the way of your temporary "ethics".

Hell, Saddam killed Kurds by the villages...he gassed his people...he suppressed the majority of his people...denied them freedoms...tortured innocents...encouraged his leaders to rape women while their husbands watched...forced people to watch as their entire blood line was savagely tortured and eliminated by the slowest and most painful means from the face of the Earth. Imagine watching your children die a horrible death.

Oh, but wait, Bush put troops on the ground. THAT is the difference. After all, if you want to save people from being killed, the best way to do it is from the air...because we don't care enough to really take out the bad guys with overwhelming force.

[Grizalltheway]

Funny, many here consider Obama a miserable failure, and firmly believe he has no shot at reelection. How quickly they forget 2004.

Your forgetting Hussein Obama is just flat out worse than Bush, at least W had balls and some personality. This idiot is like a wheelchaired retard but even more inept. Obama is so bad he make me wish Carter could come back and fu*k up our country again. He did less damage.

All you morons got is Bush cant talk good.

No, alphie, we also have the fact that he presided over the biggest economic collapse since the Depression. All your side has is 'he's a muslinsocialcommie!!'.

[houndawg]

From my point of view, when you've got a known psychopath threatening to murder the population of entire cities in their homes...you've gotta do something(see Rwanda for the consequences of doing nothing). Yes, I realize Saddam wasn't exactly a benevolent father to the people of Iraq, but as far as I know, the no-fly zone we had imposed there largely put a stop to his butchering of the Kurds.

Military force should always be a last resort, and I feel Obama and co. held off on intervening until it became clear that it would turn into a bloodbath if they didn't.

Are you a beaten housewife that defends her man?

Listen to yourself. You are defending something that can't be defended. If you are so concerned about defending citizens, then STFU about Iraq. Maybe Bush went in after WMDs, maybe he didn't. But, he certainly took out a "known psychopath threatening to murder the population of entire cities in their homes.", which, by your measure is as good a reason to attack a country as any.

In your, "the ends justify the means" world Bush should be your hero. Except you foolishly let your politics get in the way of your temporary "ethics".

Hell, Saddam killed Kurds by the villages...he gassed his people...he suppressed the majority of his people...denied them freedoms...tortured innocents...encouraged his leaders to rape women while their husbands watched...forced people to watch as their entire blood line was savagely tortured and eliminated by the slowest and most painful means from the face of the Earth. Imagine watching your children die a horrible death.

Oh, but wait, Bush put troops on the ground. THAT is the difference. After all, if you want to save people from being killed, the best way to do it is from the air...because we don't care enough to really take out the bad guys with overwhelming force.

Typical honk military expert.

How many deferments did you have Clucker?

[YoUDeeMan]

There's a known psychopath in Ivory Coast who's already killed 1500 people because he didn't get "reelected". Yet we stand by and do nothing. How many civilians does one have to kill before we take action?

Uh, we did take action. Obama offered the psychopath killer a teaching position at one of our universities.

Seriously, you can't pay someone to write a story like that...no one would believe it.

[YoUDeeMan]

The fact that we can't do it everywhere doesn't justify not doing it anywhere. Again, see Rwanda.

See Chester, PA. See Los Angeles. See Phoenix. I could go on.

How about we save some of our own civilians?

[YoUDeeMan]

Seriously. I'd like t hear the argument how Afghanistan WASN'T the right war.

I've never said it was carried out very well. But, does anyone on this board think we should have left Afghanistan alone after 9/11?

DOPE.

You won't find many people saying we shold no thave attacked Affy. If you do find one, shoot the stupid fvck.

But YOU are one of the stupid people that think sending in more troops is the answer.

[Grizalltheway]

From my point of view, when you've got a known psychopath threatening to murder the population of entire cities in their homes...you've gotta do something(see Rwanda for the consequences of doing nothing). Yes, I realize Saddam wasn't exactly a benevolent father to the people of Iraq, but as far as I know, the no-fly zone we had imposed there largely put a stop to his butchering of the Kurds.

Military force should always be a last resort, and I feel Obama and co. held off on intervening until it became clear that it would turn into a bloodbath if they didn't.

Are you a beaten housewife that defends her man?

Listen to yourself. You are defending something that can't be defended. If you are so concerned about defending citizens, then STFU about Iraq. Maybe Bush went in after WMDs, maybe he didn't. But, he certainly took out a "known psychopath threatening to murder the population of entire cities in their homes.", which, by your measure is as good a reason to attack a country as any.

In your, "the ends justify the means" world Bush should be your hero. Except you foolishly let your politics get in the way of your temporary "ethics".

Hell, Saddam killed Kurds by the villages...he gassed his people...he suppressed the majority of his people...denied them freedoms...tortured innocents...encouraged his leaders to rape women while their husbands watched...forced people to watch as their entire blood line was savagely tortured and eliminated by the slowest and most painful means from the face of the Earth. Imagine watching your children die a horrible death.

Oh, but wait, Bush put troops on the ground. THAT is the difference. After all, if you want to save people from being killed, the best way to do it is from the air...because we don't care enough to really take out the bad guys with overwhelming force.

Again, how many Kurds did he gas after the first Gulf War, Copernicus? Reagan and Bush didn't did anything to stop that, it wasn't until Kuwait that we decided to take any action against him.

Besides, I'm not saying Saddam didn't deserve to fry. He was an evil piece of shit. I'm saying we did the right thing in stepping in to prevent Qadaffi from butchering Libyans on a massive scale. Why is that something that can't be defended?

[YoUDeeMan]

Angola provides a much greater percentage of our oil imports, why didn't we intervene in their civil war if it's entirely about oil?

I need help here...are you saying we didn't have a role in the Angola civil war?

[YoUDeeMan]

We're not fighting a war, we're enforcing a no-fly zone. Conks here have conveniently glossed over that fact since this thing started.

What planet are you from? We are bombing Iraqi soldiers, tanks, and defensive positions. Hello...a tank can't fly.

[Grizalltheway]

Angola provides a much greater percentage of our oil imports, why didn't we intervene in their civil war if it's entirely about oil?

I need help here...are you saying we didn't have a role in the Angola civil war?

Financially, yes. My point in bringing that up was to challenge AZ's assertion that oil was the only reason for intervening in Libya, and the only reason we haven't done so in Ivory Coast.

[Grizalltheway]

We're not fighting a war, we're enforcing a no-fly zone. Conks here have conveniently glossed over that fact since this thing started.

What planet are you from? We are bombing Iraqi soldiers, tanks, and defensive positions. Hello...a tank can't fly.

I assume you meant Libya..?

Anyhow, the fact that we haven't actually invaded means we aren't obligated to be bogged down there for years on end, trying to nation-build. That's the key difference between Libya and Iraq.

[YoUDeeMan]

Pacifism? Nope.

Killing bad guys is good...but I'd choose my targets a bit differently than the clowns in charge.

How so?

I think I made that clear. Not sure what is so hard to understand.

You threaten our country...we kill you and your support group. We do it publicly. "Hey world, today we just bombed X training camp off the map. Sure, we may have killed a few civilians, but that's what you get when your civilians are helping a bunch of people bent on attacking us. If you don't plan on attacking us...then have a nice day."

The problem we have is that our government decides to get involved in a bunch of situations that protect private interests...so we end up helping the Euros bomb Libya to save civilians while ignoring, even helping, our Saudi/Bahraini/Tunisian friends killing civilians (hey, what's up with THAT Grizhalfwit?).

No wonder our troops get targeted.

[kalm]

What planet are you from? We are bombing Iraqi soldiers, tanks, and defensive positions. Hello...a tank can't fly.

I assume you meant Libya..?

Anyhow, the fact that we haven't actually invaded means we aren't obligated to be bogged down there for years on end, trying to nation-build. That's the key difference between Libya and Iraq.

This.

I'm skeptical, but if, according to some conks, the jury is still out on Iraq, then it clearly is on Libya.

[YoUDeeMan]

Oh, but wait, Bush put troops on the ground. THAT is the difference. After all, if you want to save people from being killed, the best way to do it is from the air...because we don't care enough to really take out the bad guys with overwhelming force.

Typical honk military expert.

How many deferments did you have Clucker?

You read that with your politics in mind. Open up that lid of yours and apologize.

[YoUDeeMan]

I need help here...are you saying we didn't have a role in the Angola civil war?

Financially, yes. My point in bringing that up was to challenge AZ's assertion that oil was the only reason for intervening in Libya, and the only reason we haven't done so in Ivory Coast.

We supplied a lot more than finances.

Angola was a completely different beast in so many ways that your example is useless. Were you even around when that was going on?

[YoUDeeMan]

What planet are you from? We are bombing Iraqi soldiers, tanks, and defensive positions. Hello...a tank can't fly.

I assume you meant Libya..?

Anyhow, the fact that we haven't actually invaded means we aren't obligated to be bogged down there for years on end, trying to nation-build. That's the key difference between Libya and Iraq.

Yup, Libya.

You keep changing your arguments. Little wonder why...they don't make sense.

The fact that we haven't invaded with ground forces (and we do have forces on the ground...but let's not bother with facts) doesn't support your incorrect assertation that we are simply supporting a no fly zone...and that we have gone beyond what the Arab League approved and what the UN approved.

Obama is a cowboy...just like Bush. Not hard to admit...except for those in denial.

[Grizalltheway]

Financially, yes. My point in bringing that up was to challenge AZ's assertion that oil was the only reason for intervening in Libya, and the only reason we haven't done so in Ivory Coast.

We supplied a lot more than finances.

Angola was a completely different beast in so many ways that your example is useless. Were you even around when that was going on?

It didn't end until 2002, so...yes.

And if you're going to use that against me, I expect you to not comment on any global event that occurred before you were born.

[YoUDeeMan]

We supplied a lot more than finances.

Angola was a completely different beast in so many ways that your example is useless. Were you even around when that was going on?

It didn't end until 2002, so...yes.

And if you're going to use that against me, I expect you to not comment on any global event that occurred before you were born.

Actually, I was trying to figure out why you were silly enough to use Angola as an example. If you were around from the beginning, you would know why it was more than just oil. As I said, different beast. Maybe you should do more reading...it might help you understand the issue a bit better.

[Chizzang]

That thread has gone Nuclear...!!!
This thing has gotten mean fast - it's escalated quickly
[youtube][/youtube]

[AZGrizFan]

Way to keep your head on a swivel!