Offside Number 76 Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Don't expect the US to be a major player in this one. It's "Sarkozy's War" if it's anyone's.
IDBillzFan Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 Don't expect the US to be a major player in this one. It's "Sarkozy's War" if it's anyone's. I wouldn't go that far, but it's definitely not Obama's war. While I understand that what I'm about to write will come across as typical right-wing partisan hack gibberish, the very real truth is that while Obama is a lot of things, a leader isn't one of them. Oh, he'll talk about what he wants, but it's never in specifics and usually boils down to "Look, I have this idea, but the rest of you figure out how to do it." How many speeches did he give on Obamacare, and yet to this day not a single soul actually knows what is in the bill. He did it with the Obamacare; he did it with the Recovery Act; he did it with DADT; he did it with Gitmo. He just comes up with suggestions and let's someone else do the heavy lifting. Think Michael Keaton in Night Shift. "What if you mix the mayonnaise in the can, WITH the tunafish? Or... hold it! Chuck! I got it! Take LIVE tuna fish, and FEED 'em mayonnaise! Oh this is great." Just great, Chuck.
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 I don't know how he missed that... Well excuse the hell out of me. But with the proliferation of unusually bizarre posters on PPP lately [that moon thing?] I lost the luxury of assuming any post sarcastic, no matter how outlandish.
EasternOHBillsFan Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 This action took no guts on Obamas part, it was a PR move to draw stark differences between his foreign policy of UN centric coalition building and Bushes. No guts = making a smart move by removing a dictator without ground troops and spending little Big guts = making a dumb move by removing a dictator with hundreds of thousands of troops and staying for 10 years while spending us into massive debt BRILLIANT! Please...
UConn James Posted March 20, 2011 Posted March 20, 2011 No guts = making a smart move by removing a dictator without ground troops and spending little Big guts = making a dumb move by removing a dictator with hundreds of thousands of troops and staying for 10 years while spending us into massive debt BRILLIANT! Please... Umm... you realize that Ghadaffi/Kaddafy/Cadhaphi/Kedafe/Quadaffi/Gedaphfi (Who knows. One (or all) of these may be correct) is still in power over like 90 percent of Libya, right? And that this action is not intended to remove him? If we're intent on protecting these people in these few areas, we're going to need to be there for the rest of Ghadaffi/Kaddafy/Cadhaphi/Kedafe/Quadaffi/Gedaphfi's natural life, and his sons'.
Offside Number 76 Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I wouldn't go that far, but it's definitely not Obama's war. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12801812 While I understand that what I'm about to write will come across as typical right-wing partisan hack gibberish, Sorry to say, but yeah, it kind of did.
Booster4324 Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I wouldn't go that far, but it's definitely not Obama's war. While I understand that what I'm about to write will come across as typical right-wing partisan hack gibberish, the very real truth is that while Obama is a lot of things, a leader isn't one of them. Oh, he'll talk about what he wants, but it's never in specifics and usually boils down to "Look, I have this idea, but the rest of you figure out how to do it." How many speeches did he give on Obamacare, and yet to this day not a single soul actually knows what is in the bill. He did it with the Obamacare; he did it with the Recovery Act; he did it with DADT; he did it with Gitmo. He just comes up with suggestions and let's someone else do the heavy lifting. Think Michael Keaton in Night Shift. "What if you mix the mayonnaise in the can, WITH the tunafish? Or... hold it! Chuck! I got it! Take LIVE tuna fish, and FEED 'em mayonnaise! Oh this is great." Just great, Chuck. I would never say gibberish. When you write, you are usually very articulate and have a very nice turn of phrase on occasion.
whateverdude Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) No guts = making a smart move by removing a dictator without ground troops and spending little Big guts = making a dumb move by removing a dictator with hundreds of thousands of troops and staying for 10 years while spending us into massive debt BRILLIANT! Please... Obama has used up his favors with the Russians (Scrapping the defense shield in eastern Europe) and China (blind eye the rights abuses and the royal treatment for HU) for this meaningless action in Libya just to build on his resume for the election and oil for Europe. Cold feet Haven't we learn our lessons about removing dictators in Muslim nations. The rebels are al-Qaeda backed and hate the US more than even Gaddafi. They are using the US. As the London Telegraph reports, “The West and al-Qaeda on the same side.” Libyan Al-Qaeda leaders have offered their unanimous support for the ousting of Gaddafi. “An al-Qaeda leader of Libyan origin, Abu Yahya al-Libi, released a statement backing the insurrection a week ago, while Yusuf Qaradawi, the Qatar-based, Muslim Brotherhood-linked theologian issued a fatwa authorising Col Gaddafi’s military entourage to assassinate him,” writes Richard Spencer, highlighting how the “rebels” are in fact religious extremists hell bent on imposing sharia law in Libya. While the global establishment media has characterized these mobs as “protesters,” even as they commandeer fighter jets and tanks, and used allegations of Gaddafi brutality against them as a justification for air strikes, in reality they largely comprise of radical Islamic fundamentalists who will end up being more savage in their abuse of power than anything Gaddafi was ever accused of, should the air strikes lead to regime change. The ordinary Libyan people, the majority of whom support Gaddafi, are caught in the middle, which is why many of them are now trying to flee Tripoli. We are stupid stupid stupid Edited March 21, 2011 by whateverdude
....lybob Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Obama has used up his favors with the Russians (Scrapping the defense shield in eastern Europe) and China (blind eye the rights abuses and the royal treatment for HU) for this meaningless action in Libya just to build on his resume for the election and oil for Europe. Cold feet Haven't we learn our lessons about removing dictators in Muslim nations. The rebels are al-Qaeda backed and hate the US more than even Gaddafi. They are using the US. We are stupid stupid stupid Or maybe the agencies who created Al-Qaeda in the first place are still running them.
whateverdude Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 Or maybe the agencies who created Al-Qaeda in the first place are still running them. I know where you are going with this and I just don't buy it...in general a believe people and especially groups of people are just too incompetent to be that sophisticated.
truth on hold Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 There's no doubt Obamas botching this. We should never have gotten in in the first place, the justification of "saving Lybian civilian lives" was clearly bogus because the war was nearly over and air bombardments are a crude tool that takes many civilian casualties. Even worse now we are learning this is far more than a "no fly" zone given we are bombing Ghadafi ground forces and his compound. But 2 things you have to ask yourself: 1) who internally was putting political pressure for US to get involved? We do know that tailgunner Joe LIEberman has been pushing for this from the start, and has a history of holding up Obamas domestic legislation to influence Obamas mideat policy. 2) what would been the alternative if McCain had won? odds are we'd be further embroidled in a quagmire in Iran over another bogus WMD claim, due to the dilusions of a senile paranoid old man and his hack of a VP. What America really finds itself is caught in the middle of 2 bad choices given the power of special interests and treasonous actors in DC, so it comes down to the lesser of two evils.
Dexter Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 So, let's get this straight, what W supporters really support... W supporters support 1. Mubarak 2. making Osama not a priority 3. flipping off those at war with the not a priority 4. sending way too few after the not a priority, way too few to encircle when the not a priority was spotted at Tora Bora 5. intentional lies to sell out our troops and national interest in Iraq, liberating the greatest ever recruiting class for the not a priority 6. attacking the US President actually trying to off the "not a priority" 7. apparently now cheering for the individual most responsible for Pan Am 103 and in the end of W's eight years of treason and Bible Thumping Socialism, W's record is that he 1. took a superpower with a budget surplus and a strong economy and returned a depression and a trillion dollar deficit by outporking, outsocializing, and outspending Jimmy Catta with a Dem Congress 2. those behind 911 are still alive 3. the US is out 4k lives, 40k maimed, and a trillion for W and Israel's lies about Iraq 4. W got to tell us "I'm a War President!!!" in 2004 5. the "US media," ferociously against Bush 41 in 1992 for refusing to sell out US troops for a US only invasion of Iraq as Israel wanted, called opponents of W's Iraq Treason "soft on (Israel's, not our) Terror"
whateverdude Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) There's no doubt Obamas botching this. We should never have gotten in in the first place, the justification of "saving Lybian civilian lives" was clearly bogus because the war was nearly over and air bombardments are a crude tool that takes many civilian casualties. Even worse now we are learning this is far more than a "no fly" zone given we are bombing Ghadafi ground forces and his compound. But 2 things you have to ask yourself: 1) who internally was putting political pressure for US to get involved? We do know that tailgunner Joe LIEberman has been pushing for this from the start, and has a history of holding up Obamas domestic legislation to influence Obamas mideat policy. 2) what would been the alternative if McCain had won? odds are we'd be further embroidled in a quagmire in Iran over another bogus WMD claim, due to the dilusions of a senile paranoid old man and his hack of a VP. What America really finds itself is caught in the middle of 2 bad choices given the power of special interests and treasonous actors in DC, so it comes down to the lesser of two evils. The most important question would be: what strategic interests does the US have in Libya? I can not figure this one out. In Iraq the US, French , British, and Saddam own generals thought their was WMD. It was largely an intelligence failure. Edited March 21, 2011 by whateverdude
Dexter Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 The most important question would be: what strategic interests does the US have in Libya? I can not figure this one out. 1. avenging Pan Am 103 What US interests were in Iraq? NOTHING Why did you support Iraq? A) too stupid B) too treasonous C) FIXED kept telling me it was "conservative" D) I think whatever my Zionist funded "Christian pastor" tells me E) all of the above
truth on hold Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) The most important question would be: what strategic interests does the US have in Libya? I can not figure this one out. For LIEberman and the neocons it's Israel and making puppets out of as many potential threats as possible. For Western Europe it's all about the "O" Edited March 21, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack
Dexter Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 Got to love those "neocons..." because the "con" is on you... ACU Ratings (out of 100, how conservative is your neocon rep...???) Joe Lieberman 15 Chucky Schumer 5 Dianne Feinstein in 2009 is credited with 0
Chef Jim Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 I wouldn't go that far, but it's definitely not Obama's war. While I understand that what I'm about to write will come across as typical right-wing partisan hack gibberish, the very real truth is that while Obama is a lot of things, a leader isn't one of them. Oh, he'll talk about what he wants, but it's never in specifics and usually boils down to "Look, I have this idea, but the rest of you figure out how to do it." How many speeches did he give on Obamacare, and yet to this day not a single soul actually knows what is in the bill. He did it with the Obamacare; he did it with the Recovery Act; he did it with DADT; he did it with Gitmo. He just comes up with suggestions and let's someone else do the heavy lifting. Think Michael Keaton in Night Shift. "What if you mix the mayonnaise in the can, WITH the tunafish? Or... hold it! Chuck! I got it! Take LIVE tuna fish, and FEED 'em mayonnaise! Oh this is great." Just great, Chuck. You know you bring something up here that I have to address. This health "care" bill was huge but I still have very little idea what has changed and how it has affected me. I pay some attention to this stuff but it seems that this massive bill has just been put on the back burner. It's like the salesman who sells you something and then just disappears leaving you to figure out how the damn thing works yourself and you have no idea where to start. THAT is the sign of poor leadership. Kind of like what I'm going through now. My lease is up on my car so I'm looking at other options. The one I'm probably going to go with is the guy who has spent the most time with me explaining the vehicle. And it's the more expensive of the three.
whateverdude Posted March 21, 2011 Author Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) For LIEberman and the neocons it's Israel and making puppets out of as many potential threats as possible. For Western Europe it's all about the "O" Bull **** If this was true we would be bombing Iran and stop posting as Dexter Edited March 21, 2011 by whateverdude
truth on hold Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Bull **** If this was true we would be bombing Iran and stop posting as Dexter umm hello, they keep trying to push the "Iran wants a weapon" case ... where have you been? Also Iran didn't get to the level of unrest Lybia did. Protracted Lybia uprising provided excuse neokooks are always looking for. Just like after 9/11 they used it to scapegoat Saddam. Not Dexter, sorry to disappoint. Edited March 21, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack
meazza Posted March 21, 2011 Posted March 21, 2011 umm hello, they keep trying to push the "Iran wants a weapon" case ... where have you been? Also Iran didn't get to the level of unrest Lybia did. Protracted Lybia uprising provided excuse neokooks are always looking for. Just like after 9/11 they used it to scapegoat Saddam. Not Dexter, sorry to disappoint. And they don't?
Recommended Posts