Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Maybe to you. For those who understand that words have meanings, not so much.Pick your own verbage then reply I guess.Strawman.
No one begs for war.
Wants war.
Demands war.
You pick, it all means the same.
War- that is, politics by other means - is, on occasion, a necessary evil. No one wants to go to war; recognizing its necesseity and acting upon it is different from 'wanting' it.
All I heard democrats do was speak glowingly about escalating warmongering in Afghanistan, they also loved the warmongering in Libya.
Same goes for republicans with regards to Iraq and the idea of War with Iran.
All the while both sides pretend, with all their might, that they love soldiers.
(All) Democrats "speak glowingly about escalation warmongering in Afghanistan" may simply be hyperbole, or political posturing, it isn't a fact or even close to being factual.
There is an element of pols who want to wage war against Iran, and I have no doubt - though no proof - the neoconservatives silently hope for a "Gulf of Tonkin" event to wage war against Iran.
Obama, as he promised, ended the fiasco in Iraq, why he doubled down in Afghanistan is disturbing but the 'action' taken in Libya was measured, didn't cost the life of any American personnel and was successfully completed. Now it's up to the people of Libya; Obama will be blamed if Libya becomes an Islamic Theocracy but not for engaging in nation building. Others want Obama to take action in Syria; D's or R's is anyones guess, I don't keep count.
Our nation has on one business for being in the Middle East and that is the oil business. If Republicans would stfu and put country first they would support green and renewable R&D and if the Obama Administration expanded the R&D of unclear (maybe they have, anyone know?) reactors America could once again be a world leader for peace.
Some good stuff in there, but then at the end you again deflect all blame from Obama for HIS continuing and escalating the generic "War on Terror."
Obama didn't have to escalate the warmongering in Afhganistan, he didn't have to waste american taxpayer dollars waging war in Libya, he doesn't have to keep escalating the "War on Terror." No republican made him do any of those things, he deserves the blame.
Yawn.Maybe to you. For those who understand that words have meanings, not so much.Pick your own verbage then reply I guess.
Wants war.
Demands war.
You pick, it all means the same.
War- that is, politics by other means - is, on occasion, a necessary evil. No one wants to go to war; recognizing its necesseity and acting upon it is different from 'wanting' it.
No one begs for war, but some secretly covet it for war for some is profitable, see the names below the linked document, to see some who might benefit from war.
Statement of Principles
And for those who don't remember, those who signed this document advised or served in the George W. Bush administration which brought us the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Do you -want- to punish your child when he misbehaves?Maybe to you. For those who understand that words have meanings, not so much.Pick your own verbage then reply I guess.
Wants war.
Demands war.
You pick, it all means the same.
War- that is, politics by other means - is, on occasion, a necessary evil. No one wants to go to war; recognizing its necesseity and acting upon it is different from 'wanting' it.
Agree to disagree, I certainly hear all kinds of voters, politicians, pundits who want more war.
The "well i don't want war but we should go to war" is just a b-s cover yourself kind of thing.
That's one way to put it.War is only necessary when the alternative is too horrible to contemplate.
Do you -want- to punish your child when he misbehaves?Maybe to you. For those who understand that words have meanings, not so much.
War- that is, politics by other means - is, on occasion, a necessary evil. No one wants to go to war; recognizing its necesseity and acting upon it is different from 'wanting' it.
Agree to disagree, I certainly hear all kinds of voters, politicians, pundits who want more war.
The "well i don't want war but we should go to war" is just a b-s cover yourself kind of thing.
(All) Democrats "speak glowingly about escalation warmongering in Afghanistan" may simply be hyperbole, or political posturing, it isn't a fact or even close to being factual.
There is an element of pols who want to wage war against Iran, and I have no doubt - though no proof - the neoconservatives silently hope for a "Gulf of Tonkin" event to wage war against Iran.
Obama, as he promised, ended the fiasco in Iraq, why he doubled down in Afghanistan is disturbing but the 'action' taken in Libya was measured, didn't cost the life of any American personnel and was successfully completed. Now it's up to the people of Libya; Obama will be blamed if Libya becomes an Islamic Theocracy but not for engaging in nation building. Others want Obama to take action in Syria; D's or R's is anyones guess, I don't keep count.
Our nation has on one business for being in the Middle East and that is the oil business. If Republicans would stfu and put country first they would support green and renewable R&D and if the Obama Administration expanded the R&D of unclear (maybe they have, anyone know?) reactors America could once again be a world leader for peace.
Some good stuff in there, but then at the end you again deflect all blame from Obama for HIS continuing and escalating the generic "War on Terror."
Obama didn't have to escalate the warmongering in Afhganistan, he didn't have to waste american taxpayer dollars waging war in Libya, he doesn't have to keep escalating the "War on Terror." No republican made him do any of those things, he deserves the blame.
"why he doubled down in Afghanistan is disturbing" is not deflecting blame from Obama and continuing to engage the terrorist organization which planned and carried out attacks on Cole and the WTC isn't 'warmongering'; a warmonger is a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war. Obama has taken the fight to AQ and it seems quite successfully. Not only has his policy lead to the death of OBL but to a number of his lieutenants.
In fact there is no evidence he has escalated anything (the number of troops in harms way is down) except diplomacy, a vastly important element of foreign policy eschewed for the most part by the previous administration and something Ronald Reagan did quite well. Nor did Obama retreat from the world stage as the new generation of isolationists suggest he should do.
The President has a difficult job, one he is doing quite well notwithstanding every effort by some in our nation to foil his efforts to fix our economy and our nations reputation around the globe.
Yawn.Maybe to you. For those who understand that words have meanings, not so much.
War- that is, politics by other means - is, on occasion, a necessary evil. No one wants to go to war; recognizing its necesseity and acting upon it is different from 'wanting' it.
No one begs for war, but some secretly covet it for war for some is profitable, see the names below the linked document, to see some who might benefit from war.
Statement of Principles
And for those who don't remember, those who signed this document advised or served in the George W. Bush administration which brought us the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
When you think you have something other than correlation, please let us know.
Sorry. Thought my reference was obvious.Yawn.No one begs for war, but some secretly covet it for war for some is profitable, see the names below the linked document, to see some who might benefit from war.
Statement of Principles
And for those who don't remember, those who signed this document advised or served in the George W. Bush administration which brought us the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
When you think you have something other than correlation, please let us know.
LOL, other than "correlation"?
(cor·re·la·tion: mutual relation of two or more things, parts. Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection).
Nope. Not at all.Apples and oranges.Do you -want- to punish your child when he misbehaves?Agree to disagree, I certainly hear all kinds of voters, politicians, pundits who want more war.
The "well i don't want war but we should go to war" is just a b-s cover yourself kind of thing.
Some good stuff in there, but then at the end you again deflect all blame from Obama for HIS continuing and escalating the generic "War on Terror."
Obama didn't have to escalate the warmongering in Afhganistan, he didn't have to waste american taxpayer dollars waging war in Libya, he doesn't have to keep escalating the "War on Terror." No republican made him do any of those things, he deserves the blame.
"why he doubled down in Afghanistan is disturbing" is not deflecting blame from Obama and continuing to engage the terrorist organization which planned and carried out attacks on Cole and the WTC isn't 'warmongering'; a warmonger is a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war. Obama has taken the fight to AQ and it seems quite successfully. Not only has his policy lead to the death of OBL but to a number of his lieutenants.
In fact there is no evidence he has escalated anything (the number of troops in harms way is down) except diplomacy, a vastly important element of foreign policy eschewed for the most part by the previous administration and something Ronald Reagan did quite well. Nor did Obama retreat from the world stage as the new generation of isolationists suggest he should do.
The President has a difficult job, one he is doing quite well notwithstanding every effort by some in our nation to foil his efforts to fix our economy and our nations reputation around the globe.
Don't worry, it's been a long time since I've ever thought you could judge an Obama decision with an open mind. Your views are pre-determined, whatever Obama decides, you'll support.
What we're doing in Afghanistan is warmongering, Afghanistan is zero threat to the U.S. Same with Libya. The War on Terror creates far more terrorists than it kills.
"why he doubled down in Afghanistan is disturbing" is not deflecting blame from Obama and continuing to engage the terrorist organization which planned and carried out attacks on Cole and the WTC isn't 'warmongering'; a warmonger is a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war. Obama has taken the fight to AQ and it seems quite successfully. Not only has his policy lead to the death of OBL but to a number of his lieutenants.
In fact there is no evidence he has escalated anything (the number of troops in harms way is down) except diplomacy, a vastly important element of foreign policy eschewed for the most part by the previous administration and something Ronald Reagan did quite well. Nor did Obama retreat from the world stage as the new generation of isolationists suggest he should do.
The President has a difficult job, one he is doing quite well notwithstanding every effort by some in our nation to foil his efforts to fix our economy and our nations reputation around the globe.
Don't worry, it's been a long time since I've ever thought you could judge an Obama decision with an open mind. Your views are pre-determined, whatever Obama decides, you'll support.
What we're doing in Afghanistan is warmongering, Afghanistan is zero threat to the U.S. Same with Libya. The War on Terror creates far more terrorists than it kills.
So you default to petualism and the arrogance of telling me (or anyone) what they think. You may disagree with my conclusions but you've offered nothing but an opinion framed by your own bias. So good luck with that, the difference between you and willow tree is you can spell.
Based on the opinions of the anti war crowd, surrender is the only viable option.
"why he doubled down in Afghanistan is disturbing" is not deflecting blame from Obama and continuing to engage the terrorist organization which planned and carried out attacks on Cole and the WTC isn't 'warmongering'; a warmonger is a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war. Obama has taken the fight to AQ and it seems quite successfully. Not only has his policy lead to the death of OBL but to a number of his lieutenants.
In fact there is no evidence he has escalated anything (the number of troops in harms way is down) except diplomacy, a vastly important element of foreign policy eschewed for the most part by the previous administration and something Ronald Reagan did quite well. Nor did Obama retreat from the world stage as the new generation of isolationists suggest he should do.
The President has a difficult job, one he is doing quite well notwithstanding every effort by some in our nation to foil his efforts to fix our economy and our nations reputation around the globe.
Don't worry, it's been a long time since I've ever thought you could judge an Obama decision with an open mind. Your views are pre-determined, whatever Obama decides, you'll support.
What we're doing in Afghanistan is warmongering, Afghanistan is zero threat to the U.S. Same with Libya. The War on Terror creates far more terrorists than it kills.
So you default to petualism and the arrogance of telling me (or anyone) what they think. You may disagree with my conclusions but you've offered nothing but an opinion framed by your own bias. So good luck with that, the difference between you and willow tree is you can spell.
They are making a shot that will make soldiers forget about stress & trauma. It will be able to cure PTSD.
Wired Magazine: The Forgetting Pill Erases Painful Memories Forever
They are making a shot that will make soldiers forget about stress & trauma. It will be able to cure PTSD.
Wired Magazine: The Forgetting Pill Erases Painful Memories Forever
They are making a shot that will make soldiers forget about stress & trauma. It will be able to cure PTSD.
Wired Magazine: The Forgetting Pill Erases Painful Memories Forever
That sounds like excellent treatment so i don't want to downplay that, but you have to voluntarily request it and go through with it. Which most won't.
