I was wrong about President Obama

So Liberals with bogus peace prizes pick and choose who to illegally kill in the name of oil?



Odd.


Democrats told me they were educated.

Let me educate you a little. That bloodthirsty fucking asshole Qaddafi killed over 200 Americans at Lockerbie. He deserved to get his brain splattered for that one. That anyone supports this piece of crap is beyond me..especially anyone calling themselves an American. Fuck Qaddafi and fuck his supporters.

He should have been dead and buried decades ago.

So out of curiosity, did you follow this philosophy over Iraq or was that "different" because it was lead by a Republican?

"Lead?" ... "Led."
 
Liberals are truly capable of cognitive dissonance. They pretend that Obama's war in Libya is not really about oil when we all know that it is. There is nothing "humanitarian" about it.
Ah, yes....'cause, after all....Republicans already covered the "humanitarian"-issues!!

"After diplomatic negotiations held through the various countries' secret services, led by Stephen Kappes of the CIA and Sir Mark Allen of MI6, in August 2003, two years after Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction, Libya wrote to the United Nations formally accepting 'responsibility for the actions of its officials' in respect of the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay compensation of up to US$2.7 billion—or up to US$10 million each—to the families of the 270 victims.

Forty percent of the compensation was then paid to each family, and a further 40% followed once U.S. sanctions were removed. Because the United States refused to take Libya off its list of state sponsors of terrorism, Libya retained the last 20% ($540 million) of the $2.7 billion compensation package. In October 2008 Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund which will be used to compensate relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims with the remaining 20%, American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing and Libyan victims of the 1986 U.S. bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi. In exchange, President Bush signed Executive Order 13477 restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the United States, the White House said.

In September 2008, U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice became the first in her position to visit Libya since 1953 and said about the visit; "It demonstrates that when countries are prepared to make $trategic change$ in direction, the United States is prepared to respond."


"When I called on Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi in his Bedouin tent last year, he was at pains to explain how he and President Bush were on the same wavelength. In all his years as a bad boy in the eyes of the West, he said, Libya was simply doing what Bush did when he invaded Iraq. "Bush is saying that America is fighting for the triumph of freedom," Gaddafi said between sips of tea. "When we were supporting liberation movements in the world, we were arguing that it was for the victory of freedom. We both agree. We were fighting for the cause of freedom."


I almost missed your post, but thank the Lord, I noticed your sig, which prevented such a calamity, old sport.
 
Liberals are truly capable of cognitive dissonance. They pretend that Obama's war in Libya is not really about oil when we all know that it is. There is nothing "humanitarian" about it.
Ah, yes....'cause, after all....Republicans already covered the "humanitarian"-issues!!

"After diplomatic negotiations held through the various countries' secret services, led by Stephen Kappes of the CIA and Sir Mark Allen of MI6, in August 2003, two years after Abdelbaset al-Megrahi's conviction, Libya wrote to the United Nations formally accepting 'responsibility for the actions of its officials' in respect of the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay compensation of up to US$2.7 billion—or up to US$10 million each—to the families of the 270 victims.

Forty percent of the compensation was then paid to each family, and a further 40% followed once U.S. sanctions were removed. Because the United States refused to take Libya off its list of state sponsors of terrorism, Libya retained the last 20% ($540 million) of the $2.7 billion compensation package. In October 2008 Libya paid $1.5 billion into a fund which will be used to compensate relatives of the Lockerbie bombing victims with the remaining 20%, American victims of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, American victims of the 1989 UTA Flight 772 bombing and Libyan victims of the 1986 U.S. bombing of Tripoli and Benghazi. In exchange, President Bush signed Executive Order 13477 restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the United States, the White House said.

In September 2008, U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice became the first in her position to visit Libya since 1953 and said about the visit; "It demonstrates that when countries are prepared to make $trategic change$ in direction, the United States is prepared to respond."


"When I called on Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi in his Bedouin tent last year, he was at pains to explain how he and President Bush were on the same wavelength. In all his years as a bad boy in the eyes of the West, he said, Libya was simply doing what Bush did when he invaded Iraq. "Bush is saying that America is fighting for the triumph of freedom," Gaddafi said between sips of tea. "When we were supporting liberation movements in the world, we were arguing that it was for the victory of freedom. We both agree. We were fighting for the cause of freedom."


Patriot: The person who can holler the loudest, without knowing what he is hollering about. – Mark Twain


You are a real patriot, my man!
 
So Liberals with bogus peace prizes pick and choose who to illegally kill in the name of oil?



Odd.


Democrats told me they were educated.

Let me educate you a little. That bloodthirsty fucking asshole Qaddafi killed over 200 Americans at Lockerbie. He deserved to get his brain splattered for that one. That anyone supports this piece of crap is beyond me..especially anyone calling themselves an American. Fuck Qaddafi and fuck his supporters.

He should have been dead and buried decades ago.

I love it when a lefty steps in shit.

Saddam must have been a nice guy because I'm willing to bet you were against getting rid of him.

Iraq under Saddam Hussein had high levels of torture and mass murder.

Secret police, torture, murders, deportations, forced disappearances, assassinations, chemical weapons, and the destruction of wetlands (more specifically, the destruction of the food sources of rival groups) were some of the methods Saddam Hussein used to maintain control. The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, as are the reports of human rights violations. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International issued regular reports of widespread imprisonment and torture.

According to The New York Times, "he [Saddam] murdered as many as a million of his people, many with poison gas. He tortured, maimed and imprisoned countless more. His unprovoked invasion of Iran is estimated to have left another million people dead. His seizure of Kuwait threw the Middle East into crisis. More insidious, arguably, was the psychological damage he inflicted on his own land. Hussein created a nation of informants — friends on friends, circles within circles — making an entire population complicit in his rule".[8] Others have estimated 800,000 deaths caused by Saddam not counting the Iran-Iraq war.[9] Estimates as to the number of Iraqis executed by Saddam's regime vary from 300-500,000[10] to over 600,000,[11] estimates as to the number of Kurds he massacred vary from 70,000 to 300,000,[12] and estimates as to the number killed in the put-down of the 1991 rebellion vary from 60,000[13] to 200,000.[11] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[14]


Invasion of Kuwait

Saddam's Kill Totals

Scud Missile Hits Reserve Soldier Barracks

Saddam's Bio

I guess for a Republican President it has to be over WMDs. But for a Democrat, all you need is a threat of a future slaughter.

Doesn't seem fair.

Um, Obama wasn't a state senator, he was a community organizer, then a Senator.
 
Let's fact it, a lot of people were wrong about Obama. Obviously the majority of American voters were wrong about Obama. His approval is sinking fast and that is because he promised a lot of things and is doing exactly the opposite. 2012 is going to be one of the worse political defeats suffered by any party. 2010 was bad, but it's gonna be worse next time. The American people witnessed the true face of the left in Wisconsin. Hope and change is over.
 
So what should be done about Iran and Syria? The U.S. can't even manage a low level guerrilla war against a few hundred taliban; barely, BARELY prevailed in iraq, if you can even call it prevailing...the U.S. would crash and burn against any enemy with a substantial military and unwavering ideology. A war with Iran would mean 100000 U.S. casualties, two trillion dollars, failure, and a complete loss of prestige, and possibly an economic depression. I dont think people today could stomach the implications of a real war.

Why should we be involved in any wars and rebellions in the middle east? Especially if, like in Libya, we don't seem to have a side that doesnt include our enemies.

Because the Zionists who rule our politicians say so. Israel wants regime change in all M.E. countries for an eventual Israeli take-over of the oil fields throughout the M.E.

Google "Greater Israel."
 
So what should be done about Iran and Syria? The U.S. can't even manage a low level guerrilla war against a few hundred taliban; barely, BARELY prevailed in iraq, if you can even call it prevailing...the U.S. would crash and burn against any enemy with a substantial military and unwavering ideology. A war with Iran would mean 100000 U.S. casualties, two trillion dollars, failure, and a complete loss of prestige, and possibly an economic depression. I dont think people today could stomach the implications of a real war.

Why should we be involved in any wars and rebellions in the middle east? Especially if, like in Libya, we don't seem to have a side that doesnt include our enemies.

Because the Zionists who rule our politicians say so. Israel wants regime change in all M.E. countries for an eventual Israeli take-over of the oil fields throughout the M.E.

Google "Greater Israel."

What a steaming pile of BS. The "Zionists" are not the problem in the ME.
 
Are you trying to justify the attack of Libya, or discredit the invasion of Iraq? Either way, you are missing your goal.

Obama actually lied about what Qaddafi said. He did not threaten to destroy the city, he was telling the residents that he would root the rebels out of it. The man is crazy, but he was trying to encourage the city that he would not rest until he had rooter the enemy out.

Just womthing to think about.

Gaddhafi literally threatened to go house to house to root out and kill the rebellious people of the city in question.

Obama didn't re-write or parse what he said, Gaddhafi said it, period.

Now, I don't know about you, but it seems to me that if a proven terrorist leader makes a statement like that, I'm going to take him at his word.

Now, as to "justifying the attack on Libya", I don't feel that that's even necessary, until someone feels that it's necessary to justify Reagan's attack on Libya in the 80's.

Bush's invasion of Iraq, however, was based on a complete fabrication, and cost thousands of American lives, not to mention tens of thousands of Americans who are now maimed.

As far as I know, there have been no Americans killed in Libya. Unless you have some evidence to the contrary.


Qaddafi was using rhetoric to encourage his people that he would do whatever was necessary to keep them safe. Taking quotes out of context is bad and evil when Fox News does it, but if Obama does it you kiss his ass. Got it.

I don't know about you, but I have no problem with going after people who kill others,

Does that include Israel who deliberately killed 134 of our sailors and maimed many more on the USS Liberty? see USS Liberty Memorial
 
Qaddafi was using rhetoric to encourage his people that he would do whatever was necessary to keep them safe. Taking quotes out of context is bad and evil when Fox News does it, but if Obama does it you kiss his ass. Got it.

By all means, show us the exact context. The meaning doesn't change.

I don't know about you, but I have no problem with going after people who kill others, I just hate to be lied to when someone says that is the reason they attacked a country, when it isn't. If this is a humanitarian mission to keep people safe, why did Obama issue a national security finding to cover his ass a month ago? Why did he secretly work to line up support before we did this? Why did all this happen behind closed doors?

Why do idiots keep pointing to Iraq like it legitimizes what Obama did? Why do they ignore the fact that Saddam killed thousands of people, and Qaddafi has only killed hundreds? Why do they think that lying about one makes the other right?

He issued a national security finding to arm rebels in a nation that is ruled by a terrorist. What is the issue with that exactly?


American-backed regime change for the benefit of Israel; it's that simple, but few sheep want to believe it.
 
why should we be involved in any wars and rebellions in the middle east? Especially if, like in libya, we don't seem to have a side that doesnt include our enemies.

Because the Zonists who rule our politicians say so. Israel wants regime change in all M.E. countries for an eventual Iraeli take-over of the oil fields throughout the M.E.

Google "Greater Israel."

what a steaming pile of bs. The "zionists" are not the problem in the me.

You are dreadfully misinformed, old sport, most people with a brain know the whole mess is due to Israel's desire for Greater Israel. Get educated before you try to run with the big dogs.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top