truth on hold Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) Actually, in two of those three you had to drag the neocons, "lying about WMDs", and all that other bull **** you spew. Actually I only mentioned "neocon" 1x. Also don't know why you've put "lying about WMDs" in quotations since it's not contained in any of my posts. Triple And why not mention them, they're a comment element. Oh man you've dug yourself such hole trying to pin a label on me you've now pidgeon holed yourself into defending the neocons ... lol. And still not addressing the lack of "Bush" in any of my 1st three posts that were critical of Obama. Quadruple Edited March 21, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 (edited) At the rate Barry's going, he'll have no one left in his corner. No Repub will vote for him. Independants like me know they got burned last time. And far-Lefties are deserting the ship. I agree with you on Iraq. However I don't know about Barry's true intentions with Libya. But you could be right. Far lefties will have no choice but to vote for him and he knows he'll have a large share of the African-American vote no matter. I think he's trying to move just right enough to bring enough independants and some righties into his fold. Much like Clinton did, throw them some curve balls heading into election. As for Lybia, Id' say the political thinking went something like this: if I don't do anything, the McCains of the world will have a field day in 2012 saying "Obama sat back and watched as a brutal dictator murder thousands of civilians. Because of his inaction, this known sponsor of terror remains in power and a threat to the free world. And oil prices hit record highs." Wreckon he just thought he'd take those lines off the table. Better having McCain blab away that he took too long like he's doing, and make him sound political, then give them a green light. But I hear you, the one thing there's consensus on, is lack of clarity over why Obama made this decision. Edited March 21, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Oh man you've dug yourself such hole trying to pin a label on me How is "You're an idiot" digging a hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Actually I only mentioned "neocon" 1x. Also don't know why you've put "lying about WMDs" in quotations since it's not contained in any of my posts. Triple And why not mention them, they're a comment element. Oh man you've dug yourself such hole trying to pin a label on me you've now pidgeon holed yourself into defending the neocons ... lol. And still not addressing the lack of "Bush" in any of my 1st three posts that were critical of Obama. Quadruple That's it, you just keep on pretending you make sense. For the record, I don't think you're liberal. I think you're partisan. You're WAY to stupid to be liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 (edited) I wonder if any of the idiots realize that: 1. "Neo-cons" used to be liberals(and, yes, some of them are Jewish, and now Dexter will run his mouth ). They realized that other liberals were too limp in the wrist, and other places, to deal effectively with the USSR and Islamic terror. So, they left the Democratic party and joined the Republicans. Hence the word "neo-con" or, NEW Conservative. You have to have been something else, if you are NEWLY a Conservative. This is why politically astute liberals are so pissed at them. And, they were able to whip up the dumbasses to rile against a word few of them even understand: Neo-con. Dexter is a fine example of one of these dumbasses. Unfortunately, Neo-cons didn't lose any of their big-spending progressive views in their transition. So, since the Bush Administration was largely supported by Neo-cons and the religious people, while the libertarians were more in support of McCain, why is anyone shocked that Bush: a. attacked countries, and sent tons of aid to anti-Communists in South America. b. spent a lot of money in the process, and spent lots of money on other things as well ????? WTF? Neo-cons acting exactly as Neo-cons believe. Where's the big f'ing revelation here? Dexter: do you think you are Jesus, revealing to all us lesser mortals, fundamental truths we don't already know? 2. Libertarian Conservative types have little if anything to do with Neo-cons. The Milton Freidman people and the Buckley types want to spend money on the military to use it as a deterrent, but they don't want to actually use it. It's simple math, hopefully spending $5 on the military now, means not having to spend $20 on a war later. The only reason we did Desert Storm under an old school Republican was: the Saudis said they would pay for it. 3. Conversely, liberals want to spend little on the military, but want to send it all over the world, as a peacekeeping force and/or an armed Peace Corps. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to buck this trend, WRT the Balkans, in 50 years. We tried this during those 50 years, and failed miserably. Some liberals came to the conclusion that it was time to move on and became: Neo-Cons. It's important to have opinions, but it's also important to know what the words you are using actually mean. Edited March 22, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Actually I only mentioned "neocon" 1x. Also don't know why you've put "lying about WMDs" in quotations since it's not contained in any of my posts. Triple And why not mention them, they're a comment element. Oh man you've dug yourself such hole trying to pin a label on me you've now pidgeon holed yourself into defending the neocons ... lol. And still not addressing the lack of "Bush" in any of my 1st three posts that were critical of Obama. Quadruple WTF? Also, learn to spell Libya would you? This has been pointed out to you before but I guess you are too stupid to learn anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 So, let's get this straight, what W supporters really support... W supporters support.... I am starting to come around to to well reasoned arguments. There are a couple of things I don't get. Israel wanted Osama to stick around because Osama doesn't like Iran. Do I have that right? Israel wanted Saddam gone because Saddam didn't like Iran. Do I have that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 To date, the United States has spent some $225 million firing Tomahawk missiles, according to CNN estimates based on U.S. Navy figures. The cost could reach up to $800 million to fully establish the no-fly zone and another $100 million a week to maintain it going forward, said Zack Cooper, a senior analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Libya attacks spark fight over cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 A real leadership void. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 A real leadership void. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html I love the French idea: appoint a political committee to oversee a coalition action sanctioned by another political committee. Yeah, that'll work. Does European politics require a three drink minimum and recent head trauma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Does European politics require a three drink minimum and recent head trauma? Rather similar to the 9th Circuit, there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Rather similar to the 9th Circuit, there. I think the 9th Circuit has a three drink minimum before they decide what they're going to drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 At least uk is being honest. The others are trying to set the table for either the rebels or a deserter to off him so they can say they didn't do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I love the French idea: appoint a political committee to oversee a coalition action sanctioned by another political committee. Yeah, that'll work. Does European politics require a three drink minimum and recent head trauma? I just amazes me that they could even contemplate military action without having a common goal and direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 I just amazes me that they could even contemplate military action without having a common goal and direction. Hell, our own government can't even decide on a common goal and direction. We're for regime change, because Qadaffi has lost the "moral right" to rule, but it's an internal Libyan matter and we won't remove him, except that we'll bomb the **** out of his country, but not him, because we're not choosing sides, except we're backing the rebels and suggesting he go into exile, but only suggesting... Germany, as usual, is smart...they recognize the principle of unity of command, and are bailing on this circus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Let's ask Vice President Biden what his thoughts are (or were during the Bush administration) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 and meets with stiff opposition from MoPar Gadaffy. Tough sledding there, I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 Libya fight is not war, it's 'kinetic military action' :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 (edited) http://www.reuters.c...E72N1JN20110324 http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Americans-Approve-Military-Action-Against-Libya.aspx Edited March 24, 2011 by erynthered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 http://www.gallup.com/poll/146738/Americans-Approve-Military-Action-Against-Libya.aspx Under Bush, that headline would have been "Majority do not approve..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts