3rdnlng Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Wow, you're going all connor on me 3rdnlng? Never mind, that's doing 3rdnlng a disservice. Let's review: "As a side not(e), it looks like the UN resolution may be effective without the need for military action." Reading comprehension is HARD. I understand that some people struggle with simple tasks. Frenkle, I've been rather nice to you lately since a couple of your posts seemed to almost make a little sense. Be careful though, I will fight back, regardless if you are having your period or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320 That was fast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110320 That was fast... Yeah, well....the French started it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Yeah, well....the French started it. How long before they surrender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Yeah, well....the French started it. Odd, they thought he was a swell guy 2 years ago I'm amazed the French even have live ammo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Odd, they thought he was a swell guy 2 years ago I'm amazed the French even have live ammo. Shortly after that photo was taken, Sarozsky kissed Qadaffi on the lips and was heard to exclaim "I know it was you Muammar. You broke my heart!" The moral of the story is: if you're a garden-variety oppressive dictatorial !@#$, that's okay. Even if you're a garden-variety, oppressive dictatorial !@#$ who bombs his own people, that's not too bad. But watch your back if you're a garden-variety oppressive dictatorial !@#$ who comes close to winning a civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Frenkle, I've been rather nice to you lately since a couple of your posts seemed to almost make a little sense. Be careful though, I will fight back, regardless if you are having your period or not. I'm not so worried about you fighting back, but I'm more than a little worried that you think I'm making sense. No offense intended, you were just the first name to pop into my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 I'm not so worried about you fighting back, but I'm more than a little worried that you think I'm making sense. No offense intended, you were just the first name to pop into my head. Just a couple more days and those cramps will be gone. Take another Midol and try to chill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Shortly after that photo was taken, Sarozsky kissed Qadaffi on the lips and was heard to exclaim "I know it was you Muammar. You broke my heart!" The moral of the story is: if you're a garden-variety oppressive dictatorial !@#$, that's okay. Even if you're a garden-variety, oppressive dictatorial !@#$ who bombs his own people, that's not too bad. But watch your back if you're a garden-variety oppressive dictatorial !@#$ who comes close to winning a civil war. Joe the six pack says it's about oil. Sure nothing like injecting new life in a near kaput rebellion to insure the oil supply is stable. The "Bush bad" "it's about oil" crowd have had 8 years to learn new catch phrases and failed. If they were parrots I wold demand my money back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Joe the six pack says it's about oil. Sure nothing like injecting new life in a near kaput rebellion to insure the oil supply is stable. The "Bush bad" "it's about oil" crowd have had 8 years to learn new catch phrases and failed. If they were parrots I wold demand my money back. "But I never said anything about Bush in a post in this thread!" [/JtSP] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) "But I never said anything about Bush in a post in this thread!" [/JtSP] Have to show him a little sympathy. Tough when your personal demon is no longer the most important man in the free world. Edited March 21, 2011 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) Regarding the video, I am happy it was posted, because it does 2 things: 1. It exposes every progressive who isn't in lock step with this guy as a hypocrite. "Libya has oil, therefore, this war is only about oil, and NATO is attacking innocent civilians over oil." IF you don't 100% agree with that statement, then you are a hypocrite, because that is the exact argument that was used by you, and all progressives, with Iraq. Any potential gain we might make from a free Libya, is exactly as likely and beneficial, as any we might make from a free Iraq. Khadafi is killing his own people, so what? So was Saddam. Khadafi supports terrorism, so what? So did Saddam. You are the ones who started the absolutist thinking on this: now sleep in your own absolutist, "no blood for oil" bed. 2. It exposes this guy, and the far-left, as the nuts they are. "Bombing doesn't save civilian lives". :lol: Yes, we won WWII, thereby liberating millions of innocent civilians, but we didn't use one single bomb. Nope. Or, bombing civilians is ok if they are Germans or Japanese, or have a political agenda that isn't Communist, but if you bomb anybody else, you are evil. You have to love it when these idiots open their mouths. One thing I will say: at least this guy isn't a phony. He is surely out of his mind: I went to his website. I am not going to link it because he's bragging about his traffic(which is a spurious claim), and I don't want to give him any. But, he is not phony. This is what the far-left actually believes, and you wonder why I say they shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of anything? Or, after countless examples, do you finally get it? Edited March 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts