fuck you obama...just fuck you

[Midnight Marauder]

Wasn't it always the plan to have NATO be the agency of war and the US to provide support as a NATO member?

Not seeing why Bones is freaking out...since that is basically what is going on.

The issue, I assume, is that the US is refusing to participate as part of NATO. We have been asked by NATO to remain as part of the proactive 'no fly' mission and, to my understand, Obama has said 'no'. To me, that is an appalling slight to the international community.

That's incorrect.

We will still be providing targeting information and intelligence from the ground via our special forces, and from the air. We just won't be firing any more missiles or doing any more air strikes. But we will be providing tankers for in-air refueling, AWACS for targeting, and stay available for rescue ops.

 

[WillowTree]

Briebart and "true journalist" being in the same sentence.

COMEDY!!!



Far RW nuts never cease to amaze me.

If you had bothered to read the article, you would have noticed the copyright at the bottom

AFP (Agence France-Presse)

He put his own lights out when his knee hit his chin.

 

[Samson]

Cons bitching because Obama isn't doing NATO's bidding?

Precious. Totally Fucking precious.

Um...Strollingbones is not a con, asswipe.

 

[Samson]

Wasn't it always the plan to have NATO be the agency of war and the US to provide support as a NATO member?

Not seeing why Bones is freaking out...since that is basically what is going on.

The issue, I assume, is that the US is refusing to participate as part of NATO. We have been asked by NATO to remain as part of the proactive 'no fly' mission and, to my understand, Obama has said 'no'. To me, that is an appalling slight to the international community.

That's incorrect.

We will still be providing targeting information and intelligence from the ground via our special forces, and from the air. We just won't be firing any more missiles or doing any more air strikes. But we will be providing tankers for in-air refueling, AWACS for targeting, and stay available for rescue ops.

What is the Arab League Doing?

 

[Ravi]

Wasn't it always the plan to have NATO be the agency of war and the US to provide support as a NATO member?

Not seeing why Bones is freaking out...since that is basically what is going on.

The issue, I assume, is that the US is refusing to participate as part of NATO. We have been asked by NATO to remain as part of the proactive 'no fly' mission and, to my understand, Obama has said 'no'. To me, that is an appalling slight to the international community.

Not according to the article, read it again.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The issue, I assume, is that the US is refusing to participate as part of NATO. We have been asked by NATO to remain as part of the proactive 'no fly' mission and, to my understand, Obama has said 'no'. To me, that is an appalling slight to the international community.

That's incorrect.

We will still be providing targeting information and intelligence from the ground via our special forces, and from the air. We just won't be firing any more missiles or doing any more air strikes. But we will be providing tankers for in-air refueling, AWACS for targeting, and stay available for rescue ops.

What is the Arab League Doing?

Bitching.

 

[WillowTree]

Cons bitching because Obama isn't doing NATO's bidding?

Precious. Totally Fucking precious.

Um...Strollingbones is not a con, asswipe.

Precious innit?

 

[Grace]

We shouldnt have been doing diddly squat over there even from the get-go.

 

[Samson]

We shouldnt have been doing diddly squat over there even from the get-go.

I think diddly-squat is hyphenated from the get-go.

 

[Ernie S.]

Wasn't it always the plan to have NATO be the agency of war and the US to provide support as a NATO member?

Not seeing why Bones is freaking out...since that is basically what is going on.

According to the administration, for this case, yes. NATO is supposed to handle ops.

So much for the coalition. I hope obama never needs France and Britain to lend a hand elsewhere. If this is how we treat our friends, we won't have any left very soon.

 

[Grace]

We shouldnt have been doing diddly squat over there even from the get-go.

I think diddly-squat is hyphenated from the get-go.

Yeah. it looks better with a hyphen. But Im lazy.

 

[Samson]

We shouldnt have been doing diddly squat over there even from the get-go.

I think diddly-squat is hyphenated from the get-go.

Yeah. it looks better with a hyphen. But Im lazy.

Lazy-is-as-lazy-does.

 

[California Girl]

Wasn't it always the plan to have NATO be the agency of war and the US to provide support as a NATO member?

Not seeing why Bones is freaking out...since that is basically what is going on.

The issue, I assume, is that the US is refusing to participate as part of NATO. We have been asked by NATO to remain as part of the proactive 'no fly' mission and, to my understand, Obama has said 'no'. To me, that is an appalling slight to the international community.

That's incorrect.

We will still be providing targeting information and intelligence from the ground via our special forces, and from the air. We just won't be firing any more missiles or doing any more air strikes. But we will be providing tankers for in-air refueling, AWACS for targeting, and stay available for rescue ops.

That's what I said. We're not on the proactive, we're recon and intel, and S&R. Since when has the US taken a back seat? We're America, not France. We have the biggest and the best. We should be in the front, not hiding behind the French.

 

[Samson]

Wasn't it always the plan to have NATO be the agency of war and the US to provide support as a NATO member?

Not seeing why Bones is freaking out...since that is basically what is going on.

According to the administration, for this case, yes. NATO is supposed to handle ops.

So much for the coalition. I hope obama never needs France and Britain to lend a hand elsewhere. If this is how we treat our friends, we won't have any left very soon.

Frankly, I think French and British pressure was the only reason we know Libya is on the map. The British have, in their own limited capacity, helped US forces in Iraq and A-stan.

We're still paying back France for showing up with a Naval Blockade at Yorktown.

 

[Grace]

I think diddly-squat is hyphenated from the get-go.

Yeah. it looks better with a hyphen. But Im lazy.

Lazy-is-as-lazy-does.

I-got-2-hours-of-sleep. Maybe-I-need-a-nap.

 

[Samson]

The issue, I assume, is that the US is refusing to participate as part of NATO. We have been asked by NATO to remain as part of the proactive 'no fly' mission and, to my understand, Obama has said 'no'. To me, that is an appalling slight to the international community.

That's incorrect.

We will still be providing targeting information and intelligence from the ground via our special forces, and from the air. We just won't be firing any more missiles or doing any more air strikes. But we will be providing tankers for in-air refueling, AWACS for targeting, and stay available for rescue ops.

That's what I said. We're not on the proactive, we're recon and intel, and S&R. Since when has the US taken a back seat? We're America, not France. We have the biggest and the best. We should be in the front, not hiding behind the French.

How do you know Americans have the biggest?

 

[del]

Cons bitching because Obama isn't doing NATO's bidding?

Precious. Totally Fucking precious.

Close, but not quite. If one says they are going to do something - cede to NATO's management - then do it, especially when lives are on the line.

Obama was quite clear that we were handing over operations to NATO and ending our own participation in the airstrikes.

obama is quite clearly in over his head

he's his own rumsfeld- i very much doubt that gates thought this was a good idea.

 

[Samson]

Close, but not quite. If one says they are going to do something - cede to NATO's management - then do it, especially when lives are on the line.

Obama was quite clear that we were handing over operations to NATO and ending our own participation in the airstrikes.

obama is quite clearly in over his head

he's his own rumsfeld- i very much doubt that gates thought this was a good idea.

Obama needs to take another, much longer, trip to Brazil.

He shouldn't return until after November 2012.

 

[del]

It cracks me up that likening someone to Dubya is now considered the most offensive insult.

it's also the most accurate description.

 

[Trajan]

Close, but not quite. If one says they are going to do something - cede to NATO's management - then do it, especially when lives are on the line.

Obama was quite clear that we were handing over operations to NATO and ending our own participation in the airstrikes.

obama is quite clearly in over his head

he's his own rumsfeld- i very much doubt that gates thought this was a good idea.

he didn't and doesn't, he has had to be reined in a few times already. He said a week before the shooting started and the res. in a house comm. hearing that a no fly wasn't something you just throw together, with Hillary week before last on Meet The Depressed sunday show it was she had to 'correct' him, Libya he said is NOT a vital US national interest, he said it straight out, then hillary jumped in to try and cover for that slip.....although he did throw in the 'humanitarian' issue which I think we, like all reasonable people know its is simply to nebulous an issue to base 'national interest' to the point of sending troops at every turn etc.


Look; on a general note my issue is NOT that he excised this power BUT that he did it in the wrong place. You only as we saw with Bush get 1 or 2 of these military adventures before the public goes bonkers , hes wasted them now.

We have Bahrain, Syria and the place where I think we may wish we would have saved one up for- Yemen, all boiling over.