or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Libya - Page 2

post #41 of 222
I'm just glad that imperialist war monger Bush isn't starting wars with brown muslims over oil.
post #42 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

I don't want to labour the point but I did not do that.

I said SOME GROUP should help but not GROUP X

It's not Rocket Science.

Actually you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

This is one occasion where - unlike the rhetoric and lies around Saddam and Ahmedinejad - the West needs to get in there and sort things out before it is a bloodbath.

I think they will but I also think that one word is uppermost in their minds and that word is OIL.

Hearing today that patients are being executed in hospital, ambulances targeted with heavy artillery.

Enough. Get a taskforce in there quick - Germans, Danes whoever. Don't trust the US/UK but this must be avoided turning into Iraq.

Wasn't building a rocket, just replying to your actual words here.

As I said before:

You say the west needs to step in, but that if they step in that "they will have infinitely more things to fear."

So it only stands to reason that you are: asking a group for help while at the same time lashing out at that group as being incapable of helping.

Not to belabor a point...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #43 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

This mission is a hot potato. Obama is going to drop it but no one is going to catch it.

Plus he's an imperialist war monger in it for the OIL OIL OIL!


Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I'm just glad that imperialist war monger Bush isn't starting wars with brown muslims over oil.



And from the Left we have........crickets.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #44 of 222
Ahhh, the ever witty CNN: "Obama Under Fire over Libya"

But on a more serious note:

"Left's view on Libya: Is this Bush's third term?"

And, pray tell, what happens if the air strikes and no-fly zone doesn't work?

"Fifth night of airstrikes unable to stop Gadhafi"

Meanwhile...who's in charge?

Does anyone get the feeling that this wasn't really thought through very carefully? Like someone just came up with a plan that said something like: "We're dealing with a backwards, 3rd-world country...we're modern super powers...we'll just fire a bunch cruise missiles and give our fighter pilots some 'practice' and we'll be done in a few days and we'll look like 'humanitarian' heroes!"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #45 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Ahhh, the ever witty CNN: "Obama Under Fire over Libya"

But on a more serious note:

"Left's view on Libya: Is this Bush's third term?"

And, pray tell, what happens if the air strikes and no-fly zone doesn't work?

"Fifth night of airstrikes unable to stop Gadhafi"

Meanwhile...who's in charge?

Does anyone get the feeling that this wasn't really thought through very carefully? Like someone just came up with a plan that said something like: "We're dealing with a backwards, 3rd-world country...we're modern super powers...we'll just fire a bunch cruise missiles and give our fighter pilots some 'practice' and we'll be done in a few days and we'll look like 'humanitarian' heroes!"

Kind of like what they said before the Iraq invasion ( I remember all of the supporters saying how quick we'd be out of there ). Only I think there's reason to believe Bush planned to go after Saddam from the get go.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #46 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post



And from the Left we have........crickets.

Where were you when we invaded Iraq? Oh! That's right.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #47 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Kind of like what they said before the Iraq invasion ( I remember all of the supporters saying how quick we'd be out of there ). Only I think there's reason to believe Bush planned to go after Saddam from the get go.

I think you must be in the wrong thread. This thread is about the current Nobel Peace Prize winning, war-ending President and his military attack on Libya.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #48 of 222
From the left? You know very well that I'm already disappointed with Obama's conservative bent, though you're too dishonest to admit that Obama is a conservative. I didn't feel like I had to chime in about that here. Kucinich wouldn't be bombing Libya.
post #49 of 222
I think the Norwegians are well aware by now, as even the Liberal Americans such as myself are, that Obama's peace prize was premature.
post #50 of 222
That may be true, but not for the Libyan intervention. For not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner, yes. For not closing Gitmo, yes. For joining a coalition to defend a Democratic uprising from a dictator using the military to try to stomp it out? No.

Although, now we know how to make Republicans disagree with military intervention--just have a Obama do it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #51 of 222
I have to say...

This: http://tarpley.net/2011/03/24/the-ci...roops-in-iraq/

really makes the Libya issue interesting on another level all together.

I am interested in what you all think of this information.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #52 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I have to say...

This: http://tarpley.net/2011/03/24/the-ci...roops-in-iraq/

really makes the Libya issue interesting on another level all together.

I am interested in what you all think of this information.

Fellows

It has to be something like that.

The US/NATO does not invade for compassionate reasons - which is why we have Darfur, Mugabe and Bahrain now today.

When it DOES invade there is always a reason.

In terms of Arab/Islamic countries I can tell you this: any US/NATO invasion will BENEFIT Saudi and the Wahabis and will be in support of them or at their instigation. Conversely it will minimise influence of Shi'i or Iranian groups.

That's all there is to it. If - as in Egypt - the people rise up, peacefully or otherwise, and there is no benefit then they will be left to get on with it and the US/NATO will step back and see how it pans out and accept the result.

If it touches on Wahabi/Saudi hegemony they will go in. Probably because they are told to.

There is a sense where the real 'axis of evil' is in fact Saudi/US/Israel. These three operate in tandem.

You can see it now at this very moment if you even take a casual look:

Saudi: attacking Bahrain
Israel: attacking Gaza
US/NATO: attacking Libya as the big distraction

It's all sleight of hand.

The areas where they have to invade are ALWAYS the areas where they have been funding the opposition militias.

Real people who want to do it peacefully...well, they just get hung out to dry or ignored.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #53 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Kind of like what they said before the Iraq invasion ( I remember all of the supporters saying how quick we'd be out of there ). Only I think there's reason to believe Bush planned to go after Saddam from the get go.

This will constitute my experiment with taking you off "ignore," where you have resided for the past 6 months or so. Nice to see you again. Hopefully we can engage is discussion here even if we disagree.

Quote:
I remember all of the supporters saying how quick we'd be out of there

Actually jimmac, very few of any people claimed that. It certainly wasn't "all" the supporters or even a sizable minority of supporters. In fact, I cannot recall a single person stating we would be out of Iraq quickly. Please provide some support for your claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Where were you when we invaded Iraq? Oh! That's right.

Apparently you haven't read the thread or my original post. I support this operation. I also do not think the POTUS needed specific "authorization" for the attack. So, those are two points on which I agree with the President.

Where I take issue is the communication and explanation of the operation. There should have been a televised address where he discussed all aspects of the mission, from the timing to his decision making process/rationale. This is what nearly all other Presidents have done in this situation. He certainly shouldn't have been in Rio or have been giving his NCAA bracket picks. The public perception was that he took too long to make a decision, and came off as dithering and disengaged. The strategy has still not been explained to the American people. Instead, there has been a flurry of contradictory statements from the Pentagon, State Department, other Administration members, etc.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #54 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This will constitute my experiment with taking you off "ignore," where you have resided for the past 6 months or so. Nice to see you again. Hopefully we can engage is discussion here even if we disagree.



Actually jimmac, very few of any people claimed that. It certainly wasn't "all" the supporters or even a sizable minority of supporters. In fact, I cannot recall a single person stating we would be out of Iraq quickly. Please provide some support for your claim?



Apparently you haven't read the thread or my original post. I support this operation. I also do not think the POTUS needed specific "authorization" for the attack. So, those are two points on which I agree with the President.

Where I take issue is the communication and explanation of the operation. There should have been a televised address where he discussed all aspects of the mission, from the timing to his decision making process/rationale. This is what nearly all other Presidents have done in this situation. He certainly shouldn't have been in Rio or have been giving his NCAA bracket picks. The public perception was that he took too long to make a decision, and came off as dithering and disengaged. The strategy has still not been explained to the American people. Instead, there has been a flurry of contradictory statements from the Pentagon, State Department, other Administration members, etc.

Quote:
This will constitute my experiment with taking you off "ignore," where you have resided for the past 6 months or so.

If you haven't noticed I haven't been here much for awhile now as I've given up on this place. So why would I care?

Quote:
Actually jimmac, very few of any people claimed that.

This is why I've given up. Why should I have to look this stuff ( always! ) up for you?

Is your memory really that bad or is it just the reality filter you use? Some of those supporters were right here. " groverat " for one ( probably buying Rumsfeld's company line ) who wisely came around to the truth something we should have never gotten into . Many responded to those of us who said this was another Vietnam by saying we wouldn't get stuck there and it would a be a quick in out. Well guess what? Just like many claimed " Just think of what the price of gas would be after we take all that oil! Well guess what?

You once also tried to claim here that there wasn't much protest against the invasion :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposit..._2003_Iraq_War

Quote:
Worldwide, the war and occupation have been officially condemned by 54 countries and the heads of many major religions. Popular anti-war feeling is strong in these and other countries, including the US' allies in the conflict, and many have experienced huge protests totalling millions of participants.

Why do you think they kept refering to it as the " Invasion "? Because " War " sounds more like a long term afair.





And lastly here's how people commonly rememember what was claimed :

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3020737AAbtxtU


Quote:
How come the war supporters told us the war in Iraq would be over in about 8 months?
Source: Feb 2003. Rumsfeld said "I don't believe the war in Iraq will last over 6 to 8 months."

Here's the answer :
Quote:
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
For the people who are saying that the war was over after Saddam was removed from power, and that we're currently in the occupational transition phase, they're just using different words for the same thing. Do you think that whatever happening in Iraq right now is not a WAR?. Stop fooling yourselves. Fighting an insurgency is still a war.

If you put the Vietnam War in the same context, you can also say that it's over from day-one. The Vietcongs are as good as dead. They're no match against the superior American firepower. The following phase was simply dealing with insurgency. Yet, the Vietnam War dragged on for ten years, even resulting in American defeat. So, is it valid for you to say that the Vietnam war was over in one day?.


Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #55 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

From the left? You know very well that I'm already disappointed with Obama's conservative bent, though you're too dishonest to admit that Obama is a conservative. I didn't feel like I had to chime in about that here. Kucinich wouldn't be bombing Libya.

I'm starting to think that "conservative" and "liberal" don't really apply to Obama. He cannot be described as either a Kucinich or a Gingrich. With him, it's more about his overall worldview. It's about the way he makes decisions and takes criticism. On some issues as you point out, he's more conservative. On others he's the most liberal President we've ever had (see: domestic spending).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

That may be true, but not for the Libyan intervention. For not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner, yes. For not closing Gitmo, yes. For joining a coalition to defend a Democratic uprising from a dictator using the military to try to stomp it out? No.


The criticism I've heard has been quite pointed and well-reasoned. Most of it focuses on exit strategy and how this mission is defined, which I think are valid points. Some say we have no business being over there. Others are worried about the financial aspect. Finally, some are criticizing how the President personally handled the situation and communicated it to the public. The most conservative commentators say that Obama appears "dithering." That said, I am a Republican and I support the action. I know there have been others who have as well.

Last point: While I don't think Obama needed to go to Congress to get authorization, I also think that his past statements with regard to using military force w/o authorization make him appear exceptionally hypocritical.

Quote:
Although, now we know how to make Democrats agree with military intervention by the President without Congressional approval--just have a Obama do it.

Fixed that for you.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #56 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I have to say...

This: http://tarpley.net/2011/03/24/the-ci...roops-in-iraq/

really makes the Libya issue interesting on another level all together.

I am interested in what you all think of this information.

Fellows

I think it's based on a 4 year old report based on things that happened 4-5 years ago.

To look at the "rebels" on TV I don't think anyone would say "The rebels are clearly not civilians, but an armed force. What kind of an armed force?".

Why let reality get in the way when there is a whisper campaign to start?
post #57 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

I think it's based on a 4 year old report based on things that happened 4-5 years ago.

To look at the "rebels" on TV I don't think anyone would say "The rebels are clearly not civilians, but an armed force. What kind of an armed force?".

Why let reality get in the way when there is a whisper campaign to start?

Reality
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #58 of 222
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

If you haven't noticed I haven't been here much for awhile now as I've given up on this place. So why would I care?

Didn't say you did. I just thought I'd give it another shot.

Quote:


This is why I've given up. Why should I have to look this stuff ( always! ) up for you?

Is your memory really that bad or is it just the reality filter you use? Some of those supporters were right here. " groverat " for one ( probably buying Rumsfeld's company line ) who wisely came around to the truth something we should have never gotten into . Many responded to those of us who said this was another Vietnam by saying we wouldn't get stuck there and it would a be a quick in out. Well guess what? Just like many claimed " Just think of what the price of gas would be after we take all that oil! Well guess what?

I'm just asking who it was that claimed that we'd be in and out. You need to "look this stuff up" because you made a claim. I'm not asking about those who supported or opposed the war. I supported it, as did goverat and a few others. I'm simply asking which people claimed it would be over quickly. Do you mean members here or politicians? Both?

Quote:

You once also tried to claim here that there wasn't much protest against the invasion :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposit..._2003_Iraq_War


Why do you think they kept refering to it as the " Invasion "? Because " War " sounds more like a long term afair.

Actually, I didn't claim that. I claimed that based on polling data, the American public supported the war (at a given point...this was probably around late February 2003). I realize there was opposition.

Quote:


And lastly here's how people commonly rememember what was claimed :

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...3020737AAbtxtU

Here's the answer :



Let me get this straight. You're now claiming that Yahoo Answers constitutes how "people" commonly remember what was claimed? You're actually presenting that as evidence of said claim?

Again, I realize you view this as me trying to force the point. I honestly am not trying to take an adversarial tone. I'm just asking to whom you're referring. Are we talking about Rumsfeld? Cheney? Bush himself? Or are we talking about anonymous internet posters?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #59 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post




I'm just asking who it was that claimed that we'd be in and out.

Well from my perspective in this case I CLEARLY remember Cheney making the claim.


"Vice President Cheney, for example, predicted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's troops would "step aside" and that the conflict would be "weeks rather than months," a phrase repeated by other top officials. Others in advisory roles in the administration predicted Iraqi soldiers would "throw in the towel" and Hussein would collapse like "a house of cards"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #60 of 222
It doesn't really matter what you put into the Right-wing Revision Machine - it will mince it all up together like the meat-grinder in that Pink Floyd vid and then transmogrify into a hammer that just beats everything in its path with no sentient assessment or evaluation.

You could for example post a video of Bush, Cheney, McCain and Uncle Tom Cobley all shouting in unison "WE WILL BE IN AND OUT" but it would make no difference.

It would make no impact. Not even a ripple.

The Machine would goose-step on crushing everything beneath their jackbooted tread.

It's not about TRUTH or FACTS - they hate those. They want to kill those.

They want to pack Truth and Facts into a cattle truck and head them into the Siberian winter to die in an extermination camp.

Let's test. I'll post these.

McCain:

Quote:
Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women. [CNN, 9/24/02]

Were not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but were not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies. [CNN, 9/29/02]

But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily. [MSNBC, 1/22/03]

Link

Cheney:

Quote:
On the March 16, 2003, broadcast of CBS' Face the Nation, Cheney stated: "I think [the war will] go relatively quickly." When host Bob Schieffer pressed the vice president to offer a more precise estimate of how long the war would take, Cheney replied: "Weeks rather than months." On NBC's Meet the Press the same day, Cheney stated, "my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators [by the Iraqi people]."

Rumsfeld:

Quote:
In a February 7, 2003, appearance at Aviano Air Base in Italy, Rumsfeld projected that the Iraq war "could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."

Adelman:

Quote:
In a February 13, 2002, Washington Post op-ed, Ken Adelman, at the time a member of the Defense Policy Board, stated: "I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk. Let me give simple, responsible reasons: (1) It was a cakewalk last time; (2) they've become much weaker; (3) we've become much stronger; and (4) now we're playing for keeps."

Links for all above

Link is also interesting for examples of the lying after the fact by the Right overlords and the BS the Right-sheep have parroted. Possibly a source for SDWs opinion though not sure....could be any one of thousands of similar sources.

Anyway, while we're waiting - and it might be a long wait if the circuits burn out, that can sometimes happen - let's all try to think of the excuses and avoidance strategies they'll come up with.

I can think of 9 possibilities just at random. That's probably the limit of their creativity.... but you may think of more.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #61 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Fixed that for you.

Except you're full of shit. I supported taking out the Taliban. I learned my lesson for giving said support. But I supported it nonetheless. I also thought Bush should have gone to Darfur instead of Iraq. That would have really demonstrated that he cared about a people being ruthlessly killed by its government. We all know that was a farce. It came out in Rumsfeld's book that Bush was already talking about invading Iraq days after 9/11.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #62 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Except you're full of shit. I supported taking out the Taliban. I learned my lesson for giving said support. But I supported it nonetheless. I also thought Bush should have gone to Darfur instead of Iraq. That would have really demonstrated that he cared about a people being ruthlessly killed by its government. We all know that was a farce. It came out in Rumsfeld's book that Bush was already talking about invading Iraq days after 9/11.

Looks to me like these 'rebels' in Libya that are being supported now by the West are also a sort of Taleban-esque Wahabi outfit.

Be interesting to know who has been supplying them with hardcore weapons and even planes - I don't believe it is the UK or US.

But we don't seem to be hearing any discussion of this or even who they are or what they want.

I find that suggestive - and very worrying.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #63 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Didn't say you did. I just thought I'd give it another shot.



I'm just asking who it was that claimed that we'd be in and out. You need to "look this stuff up" because you made a claim. I'm not asking about those who supported or opposed the war. I supported it, as did goverat and a few others. I'm simply asking which people claimed it would be over quickly. Do you mean members here or politicians? Both?



Actually, I didn't claim that. I claimed that based on polling data, the American public supported the war (at a given point...this was probably around late February 2003). I realize there was opposition.



Let me get this straight. You're now claiming that Yahoo Answers constitutes how "people" commonly remember what was claimed? You're actually presenting that as evidence of said claim?

Again, I realize you view this as me trying to force the point. I honestly am not trying to take an adversarial tone. I'm just asking to whom you're referring. Are we talking about Rumsfeld? Cheney? Bush himself? Or are we talking about anonymous internet posters?

Rumsfeld :
Quote:
"It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months," he said, speaking at the American air base at Aviano, in northern Italy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm And you've gotten another one from Fellows about Cheney. How many do you need?

And by the way :
Quote:
Opposition to the invasion coalesced in the worldwide February 15, 2003 anti-war protest that attracted between six and ten million people in more than 800 cities, the largest such protest in human history according to the Guinness Book of World Records.[61]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq

Bigger than Beck's " I have a scheme ".




This is just more subterfuge on your part but I guess any source can be questioned when it's convenient.


Quote:
Actually, I didn't claim that. I claimed that based on polling data, the American public supported the war (at a given point...this was probably around late February 2003). I realize there was opposition.


Ok show me the quote.

Over the course of our many discussions at that time you claimed many things. I guess it's easy to claim you've said anything when so much time has past. Either that or selective memory loss.

No matter what you'll never admit anything. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary. There are too many like you here who make me realize I'm wasting my time. That's why I don't post much anymore here. The whole thing is a joke and can't be taken seriously.

Sad really since I remember a time when you could have real discussions with people about real issues ( not cartoon crap like Obama's birth certificate ). What horse shit! The only good part about this is that back in the real world it's those cartoon issues that keep those people out of power and will eventually lead to them not being taken seriously by the voting public. Thank God for something good coming out of all of this!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #64 of 222
I'll just leave this here...

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #65 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'll just leave this here...

The big difference though is Bush's critics were basically changing their minds on a matter on which they had already VOTED. To do a 180 from a position on which you have voted for political points is indeed damaging and placing politics above country.

I'd be happy to see where Republicans or anyone else were allowed to vote on whatever pile of spin we are calling the actions in Libya.

Obama went to the United Nations for approval.
Obama went to the League of Arab States for approval.
Obama did NOT go to the U.S. Congress for approval.

I'll just leave that here as well.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #66 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

No matter what you'll never admit anything. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary. There are too many like you here who make me realize I'm wasting my time. That's why I don't post much anymore here. The whole thing is a joke and can't be taken seriously.

Sad really since I remember a time when you could have real discussions with people about real issues ( not cartoon crap like Obama's birth certificate ). What horse shit! The only good part about this is that back in the real world it's those cartoon issues that keep those people out of power and will eventually lead to them not being taken seriously by the voting public. Thank God for something good coming out of all of this!

I would argue that it is good for objective people to participate in these forums.

I voted for Bush for his 1st term but then in short order realized that I could not vote for him for a second term. Out of this frustration with Bush and the republicans who spent like drunken sailors and were far too war hungry for my taste I decided to vote for Obama.

Well... Instead of Change we can believe we have more of the same. Spending gone even more mad and would you believe it the continuation of Bush policies RE: Gitmo etc. and now ventures into Libya etc.

I have played both sides in the voting booth and in my opinion was played both times.

I think many here know how my positions have varied. In the end both parties are the same.

All for Big Government and subverting the US constitution.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #67 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The big difference though is Bush's critics were basically changing their minds on a matter on which they had already VOTED. To do a 180 from a position on which you have voted for political points is indeed damaging and placing politics above country.

I'd be happy to see where Republicans or anyone else were allowed to vote on whatever pile of spin we are calling the actions in Libya.

Obama went to the United Nations for approval.
Obama went to the League of Arab States for approval.
Obama did NOT go to the U.S. Congress for approval.

I'll just leave that here as well.

I don't remember nuance allowed as an excuse for being anti-American when I was hounded during the Bush years. Try again. In fact, in Bush's own words..."You're either with us, or against us!"

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #68 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fellowship View Post

I would argue that it is good for objective people to participate in these forums.

I voted for Bush for his 1st term but then in short order realized that I could not vote for him for a second term. Out of this frustration with Bush and the republicans who spent like drunken sailors and were far too war hungry for my taste I decided to vote for Obama.

Well... Instead of Change we can believe we have more of the same. Spending gone even more mad and would you believe it the continuation of Bush policies RE: Gitmo etc. and now ventures into Libya etc.

I have played both sides in the voting booth and in my opinion was played both times.

I think many here know how my positions have varied. In the end both parties are the same.

All for Big Government and subverting the US constitution.

Fellows

Hey I'm not happy with Obama either. However Bush makes him look like a great guy! People seem to forget all of the major problems we have now had their roots in the Bush administration. And for any of you who want to spin this into it wasn't his fault then why was he president? You're either responsible for what happens during your watch or not. If not you shouldn't be in the position if you're not accountable. You'd expect the same from Obama so what's the difference?

Now that we have a Democrat for a president some of the things that were ok during the Bush years are now bad. They even use some of the same arguments that the left used back then.

It's called " Double standard ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #69 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey I'm not happy with Obama either. However Bush makes him look like a great guy! People seem to forget all of the major problems we have now had their roots in the Bush administration. And for any of you who want to spin this into it wasn't his fault them why was he president? You expect the same from Obama so what's the difference?

Now that we have a Democrat for a president some of the things that weren't ok during the Bush years are now bad. They even use some of the same arguments that the left used back then.

It's called double standard.

Wait...I don't see how you can say that. I look at it like this:

Bush is all the things I detest: ignorant Right-wing moralist warhead dedicated to upholding the status quo.

But guess what? he never pretended otherwise and when he got in - he was true to all those things.

Fair enough. We know where we stand.

But Obama - he claimed to be the opposite. And now we see he is the same (those who are objective do).

So that makes him worse...he betrayed his constituency. Bush never did that.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #70 of 222
He's not literally the same. You're also insulting anyone who sees distinctions between Bush & Obama by claiming those people can't be objective. Sego, of all people, YOU ignoring nuance and turning into a fundie? For shame.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #71 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now that we have a Democrat for a president some of the things that weren't ok during the Bush years are now bad.

I think I know what you meant here. But anyway...

There's a fair amount of hypocrisy on both sides of the political isle. Regarding things that the left/"liberals"/Democrats/"progressives" were strongly critical of when Bush was doing them, they're either silent or supportive of now that Obama is doing them.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #72 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Hey I'm not happy with Obama either. However Bush makes him look like a great guy! People seem to forget all of the major problems we have now had their roots in the Bush administration. And for any of you who want to spin this into it wasn't his fault then why was he president? You're either responsible for what happens during your watch or not. If not you shouldn't be in the position if you're not accountable. You'd expect the same from Obama so what's the difference?

Now that we have a Democrat for a president some of the things that were ok during the Bush years are now bad. They even use some of the same arguments that the left used back then.

It's called " Double standard ".

Yea Remember when Bush caused that earthquake and tsunami? Oh never mind. Remember when Bush bombed those muslims for oil and risked the blowback from a state sponsor of terrorism? ^H^H^H. Wait no hang on. I'll find something.
post #73 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Wait...I don't see how you can say that. I look at it like this:

Bush is all the things I detest: ignorant Right-wing moralist warhead dedicated to upholding the status quo.

But guess what? he never pretended otherwise and when he got in - he was true to all those things.

Fair enough. We know where we stand.

But Obama - he claimed to be the opposite. And now we see he is the same (those who are objective do).

So that makes him worse...he betrayed his constituency. Bush never did that.

And one more thing. Are you fucking kidding me? Bush never betrayed his constituency? Let's see...fiscal irresponsibility and government expansion just to name two betrayals.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #74 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The big difference though is Bush's critics were basically changing their minds on a matter on which they had already VOTED. To do a 180 from a position on which you have voted for political points is indeed damaging and placing politics above country.

I'd be happy to see where Republicans or anyone else were allowed to vote on whatever pile of spin we are calling the actions in Libya.

Obama went to the United Nations for approval.
Obama went to the League of Arab States for approval.
Obama did NOT go to the U.S. Congress for approval.

I'll just leave that here as well.

Quote:
The big difference though is Bush's critics were basically changing their minds on a matter on which they had already VOTED

Been over this point many times already. You want to believe your president when he says " There's a threat ". Once those people found out how flimsy the evidence was they changed their minds. But I'm sure like usual you'd want to gloss over that point.

Back then it was difficult where the Bush administration was coming from. First we invade because there's WMDs in them thar hills. Then it's we're here to free the Iraqi people from an awful dictator ( never mind how many other's just like him there are in the world ). Then it was well we can't just leave there'd be chaos which brings us up to the current day.

And folks if you think this means we'd be better of going Republican next time to fix things well been there done that. It's how we got here in the first place.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #75 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Yea Remember when Bush caused that earthquake and tsunami? Oh never mind. Remember when Bush bombed those muslims for oil and risked the blowback from a state sponsor of terrorism? ^H^H^H. Wait no hang on. I'll find something.

Let me know when you awake from what ever you've been smoking and start making sense. Ok?

And make no mistake anything we do in the middle east is about oil. Pure and simple. If there weren't any dead dinosaurs there we'd say : " Let em' fight it out among themselves ". That and in Bush's case distraction from being a 3rd rate leader that's always on vacation.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #76 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You want to believe your president when he says " There's a threat ".

Interesting. Very interesting.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #77 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Interesting. Very interesting.

You're probably too young but have you ever seen " Laugh In "?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_IHAZeqwQvA



Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #78 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

You're probably too young but have you ever seen " Laugh In "?

Nope.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #79 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Nope.

Then watch the clip. That's really Peter Sellers with Artie Johnson.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #80 of 222
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Then watch the clip. That's really Peter Sellers with Artie Johnson.

Anyway...back to you accusing others of believing the president when he says " There's a threat ".

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider