This should piss the off

[MaggieMae]

IDK, that slapnutz Obama said he feels we should go in.

Again, no, he didn't. And please speak English. I don't want to have to go to the Urban Dictionary just for translation of some of your abbreviated version that passes for language.

The United States will NOT be the first one in anymore. If we can't even afford the two wars we're already still fighting, we're sure as hell not going to start another one. Got it?

ok, if you say so

President Barack Obama has instructed the Pentagon to reposition U.S. military forces around Libya as the administration prepares to exploit a humanitarian crisis to seize de facto control over the largest oil producing country in the continent of Africa, following the advice of top neo-cons who have urged Obama to use U.S. forces to topple the Gaddafi regime.

“We have planners working and various contingency plans and I think it’s safe to say as part of that we’re repositioning forces to be able to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made … to be able to provide options and flexibility,” Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said today.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has openly stated its intention to aid Libyan rebels fighting to overthrow Gaddafi, publicly confirming that the revolution has the full blessing and support of the US military-industrial complex.



The warmongering Obama Regime is gearing up for interventionism in Libya. Having increased Bush’s military budgets two years in a row and having expanded the “war on terror” to half the Middle East, the Obama regime, with the support of both neocons and neoliberals, now contemplates war in Libya.

The Week reports:

“Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), an Obama ally and the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also warns of failing to prevent a slaughter. Obama says he’s considering “a range of potential options, including potential military options.” Can Obama delay taking action much longer? Should he?”

Obviously they're talking about all different options based on different scenarios. But that's a little different than your blanket statement that "IDK, that slapnutz Obama said he feels we should go in." Obama has said no such thing.

 

[Spoonman]

Again, no, he didn't. And please speak English. I don't want to have to go to the Urban Dictionary just for translation of some of your abbreviated version that passes for language.

The United States will NOT be the first one in anymore. If we can't even afford the two wars we're already still fighting, we're sure as hell not going to start another one. Got it?

ok, if you say so

President Barack Obama has instructed the Pentagon to reposition U.S. military forces around Libya as the administration prepares to exploit a humanitarian crisis to seize de facto control over the largest oil producing country in the continent of Africa, following the advice of top neo-cons who have urged Obama to use U.S. forces to topple the Gaddafi regime.

“We have planners working and various contingency plans and I think it’s safe to say as part of that we’re repositioning forces to be able to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made … to be able to provide options and flexibility,” Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said today.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has openly stated its intention to aid Libyan rebels fighting to overthrow Gaddafi, publicly confirming that the revolution has the full blessing and support of the US military-industrial complex.



The warmongering Obama Regime is gearing up for interventionism in Libya. Having increased Bush’s military budgets two years in a row and having expanded the “war on terror” to half the Middle East, the Obama regime, with the support of both neocons and neoliberals, now contemplates war in Libya.

The Week reports:

“Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), an Obama ally and the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also warns of failing to prevent a slaughter. Obama says he’s considering “a range of potential options, including potential military options.” Can Obama delay taking action much longer? Should he?”

Obviously they're talking about all different options based on different scenarios. But that's a little different than your blanket statement that "IDK, that slapnutz Obama said he feels we should go in." Obama has said no such thing.

Yes, he is repositioning forces around Libya because he wants to sit aroung the campfire and sing cumbaya. Do you even have a clue what this psycho you worship is really doing?

 

[MaggieMae]

The Mujahideen were made up of a number of groups. Where did they go? We know that at least two of those groups were the same people who our Spec Ops worked with to oust the Taliban.



LOL....or maybe FDR and Truman for being allied with the Soviet Union to destroy Nazi Germany?

What it really goes to show you is how ungrateful Muslims can be. We help them rid their nation from an aggressor in the USSR, and they turn around and attack us.

You may blame Reagan (of course, Clinton didn't correct that at all either), but who said we owed them more than helping them free their Country of a Russian puppet government? It really isn't our fault they failed after we gave them a helping hand.

The Taliban wasn't responsible for the 911 attacks if that's what you're talking about. Bin Laden is Wahhibi, expatriated from Saudi Arabia when he began forming his own army of extremists loyal to Wahhabism, a threat to the legitimacy of the Saudi state and royalty. A man without a country, The Taliban gave bin Laden safe refuge, for a price. Fact, not fiction, long before he instigated the attacks on the United States. Do some homework.

Which makes them guilty. Thank you very much

Seeker was implying that The Taliban through bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on 911. They were not, which is what I alluded to. They were guilty of protecting al-Qaeda, and certain Taliban tribes still are.

 

[MaggieMae]

The warmongering Obama Regime is gearing up for interventionism in Libya. Having increased Bush’s military budgets two years in a row and having expanded the “war on terror” to half the Middle East, the Obama regime, with the support of both neocons and neoliberals, now contemplates war in Libya.

You should always come prepared to back up remarks. The military budgets have NOT been increased from Bush's.

U.S. Military Spending, 1946–2009 — Infoplease.com

In addition, the military budgets under Bush did not include the annual cost for the two wars, which are done by supplemental authorizations.

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Budget for 2010
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $319 billion and $654 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]

[edit]Emergency and supplemental spending
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[7] Starting in the fiscal year 2010 budget however, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are categorized as "Overseas Contingency Operations" and included in the budget.

By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.[8]

 

[MaggieMae]

ok, if you say so

President Barack Obama has instructed the Pentagon to reposition U.S. military forces around Libya as the administration prepares to exploit a humanitarian crisis to seize de facto control over the largest oil producing country in the continent of Africa, following the advice of top neo-cons who have urged Obama to use U.S. forces to topple the Gaddafi regime.

“We have planners working and various contingency plans and I think it’s safe to say as part of that we’re repositioning forces to be able to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made … to be able to provide options and flexibility,” Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said today.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has openly stated its intention to aid Libyan rebels fighting to overthrow Gaddafi, publicly confirming that the revolution has the full blessing and support of the US military-industrial complex.



The warmongering Obama Regime is gearing up for interventionism in Libya. Having increased Bush’s military budgets two years in a row and having expanded the “war on terror” to half the Middle East, the Obama regime, with the support of both neocons and neoliberals, now contemplates war in Libya.

The Week reports:

“Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), an Obama ally and the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also warns of failing to prevent a slaughter. Obama says he’s considering “a range of potential options, including potential military options.” Can Obama delay taking action much longer? Should he?”

Obviously they're talking about all different options based on different scenarios. But that's a little different than your blanket statement that "IDK, that slapnutz Obama said he feels we should go in." Obama has said no such thing.

Yes, he is repositioning forces around Libya because he wants to sit aroung the campfire and sing cumbaya. Do you even have a clue what this psycho you worship is really doing?

I do, and he's not going to even give the impression that the United States is going to war against Libya. Deal with it. We finally have a president who is unwilling to go off half cocked (literally) over oil. If you consider that a pyschotic strategy, then you are very much in the minority.

Even the right-wing Rasmussen poll shows little support for US involvement in Libya. But take your pick of similar polls.

http://www.google.com/search?source...+on+American+support+for+involvement+in+Libya

 

[Spoonman]

The warmongering Obama Regime is gearing up for interventionism in Libya. Having increased Bush’s military budgets two years in a row and having expanded the “war on terror” to half the Middle East, the Obama regime, with the support of both neocons and neoliberals, now contemplates war in Libya.

You should always come prepared to back up remarks. The military budgets have NOT been increased from Bush's.

U.S. Military Spending, 1946–2009 — Infoplease.com

In addition, the military budgets under Bush did not include the annual cost for the two wars, which are done by supplemental authorizations.

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Budget for 2010
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $319 billion and $654 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]

[edit]Emergency and supplemental spending
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[7] Starting in the fiscal year 2010 budget however, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are categorized as "Overseas Contingency Operations" and included in the budget.

By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.[8]

WTF? I like how your link only goes up to 2009. What about the LAST 2 YEARS? That is what they were talking about there. Please come prepared next time. OK

 

[MaggieMae]

The warmongering Obama Regime is gearing up for interventionism in Libya. Having increased Bush’s military budgets two years in a row and having expanded the “war on terror” to half the Middle East, the Obama regime, with the support of both neocons and neoliberals, now contemplates war in Libya.

You should always come prepared to back up remarks. The military budgets have NOT been increased from Bush's.

U.S. Military Spending, 1946–2009 — Infoplease.com

In addition, the military budgets under Bush did not include the annual cost for the two wars, which are done by supplemental authorizations.

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Budget for 2010
For the 2010 fiscal year, the president's base budget of the Department of Defense rose to $533.8 billion. Adding spending on "overseas contingency operations" brings the sum to $663.8 billion.[1][2]

When the budget was signed into law on October 28, 2009, the final size of the Department of Defense's budget was $680 billion, $16 billion more than President Obama had requested.[3] An additional $37 billion supplemental bill to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was expected to pass in the spring of 2010, but has been delayed by the House of Representatives after passing the Senate.[4][5] Defense-related expenditures outside of the Department of Defense constitute between $319 billion and $654 billion in additional spending, bringing the total for defense spending to between $1.01 and $1.35 trillion in fiscal year 2010.[6]

[edit]Emergency and supplemental spending
The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[7] Starting in the fiscal year 2010 budget however, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are categorized as "Overseas Contingency Operations" and included in the budget.

By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.[8]

WTF? I like how your link only goes up to 2009. What about the LAST 2 YEARS? That is what they were talking about there. Please come prepared next time. OK

Do your own fucking research, which is what you should have done before you started making unfounded claims. Oh, and if you intend to do your own homework, bear in mind that the "last two years" brings you back to 2009, or can't you count either... The Wiki link gives the summary for 2010, so you can begin with their sources, and 2011 military budget proposal hasn't yet been approved. So have at it. You're on your own.

 

[Spoonman]

Now MaggieMae, I'm sure you are off struggling trying ot get the real facts. I know how facts trip up you libs so I'll help you out a bit with a little teaser

DoD Releases Fiscal 2010 Budget Proposal


President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $663.8 billion for fiscal 2010.



President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $708 billion for fiscal 2011



You should always come prepared to back up remarks. The military budgets have NOT been increased from Bush's. - Ok if you say so.

 

[Spoonman]

You should always come prepared to back up remarks. The military budgets have NOT been increased from Bush's.

U.S. Military Spending, 1946–2009 — Infoplease.com

In addition, the military budgets under Bush did not include the annual cost for the two wars, which are done by supplemental authorizations.

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WTF? I like how your link only goes up to 2009. What about the LAST 2 YEARS? That is what they were talking about there. Please come prepared next time. OK

Do your own fucking research, which is what you should have done before you started making unfounded claims. Oh, and if you intend to do your own homework, bear in mind that the "last two years" brings you back to 2009, or can't you count either... The Wiki link gives the summary for 2010, so you can begin with their sources, and 2011 military budget proposal hasn't yet been approved. So have at it. You're on your own.

Yes and I bitchslapped you

 

[Spoonman]

Hey, what happened to Maggie Mae?

 

[AmericanFirst]

There are too many factual errors to list, but I'll offer one.....

It uses the phrase 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and claims that the USA armed and helped the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Anyone who knows the facts or even watched Charlie Wilson's War knows that the USA did not supply aid or arms to the Taliban, but actually to the Northern Alliance who were enemies of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

I hear this fallacy repeated constantly that the US armed and trained Bin Laden and/or the Taliban and it's simply not true. Bin Laden had practically nothing to do with the Mujahideen's victory over the Red Army.

The left doesn't care about facts.

 

[newpolitics]

There are too many factual errors to list, but I'll offer one.....

It uses the phrase 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and claims that the USA armed and helped the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Anyone who knows the facts or even watched Charlie Wilson's War knows that the USA did not supply aid or arms to the Taliban, but actually to the Northern Alliance who were enemies of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

I hear this fallacy repeated constantly that the US armed and trained Bin Laden and/or the Taliban and it's simply not true. Bin Laden had practically nothing to do with the Mujahideen's victory over the Red Army.

The left doesn't care about facts.

Funny, I feel the exact same way about the right.

 

[CountofTuscany]

ok, if you say so

President Barack Obama has instructed the Pentagon to reposition U.S. military forces around Libya as the administration prepares to exploit a humanitarian crisis to seize de facto control over the largest oil producing country in the continent of Africa, following the advice of top neo-cons who have urged Obama to use U.S. forces to topple the Gaddafi regime.

“We have planners working and various contingency plans and I think it’s safe to say as part of that we’re repositioning forces to be able to provide for that flexibility once decisions are made … to be able to provide options and flexibility,” Colonel David Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said today.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has openly stated its intention to aid Libyan rebels fighting to overthrow Gaddafi, publicly confirming that the revolution has the full blessing and support of the US military-industrial complex.



The warmongering Obama Regime is gearing up for interventionism in Libya. Having increased Bush’s military budgets two years in a row and having expanded the “war on terror” to half the Middle East, the Obama regime, with the support of both neocons and neoliberals, now contemplates war in Libya.

The Week reports:

“Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), an Obama ally and the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also warns of failing to prevent a slaughter. Obama says he’s considering “a range of potential options, including potential military options.” Can Obama delay taking action much longer? Should he?”

Obviously they're talking about all different options based on different scenarios. But that's a little different than your blanket statement that "IDK, that slapnutz Obama said he feels we should go in." Obama has said no such thing.

Yes, he is repositioning forces around Libya because he wants to sit aroung the campfire and sing cumbaya. Do you even have a clue what this psycho you worship is really doing?

It looks like Obama got his way.

 

[Spoonman]

Obviously they're talking about all different options based on different scenarios. But that's a little different than your blanket statement that "IDK, that slapnutz Obama said he feels we should go in." Obama has said no such thing.

Yes, he is repositioning forces around Libya because he wants to sit aroung the campfire and sing cumbaya. Do you even have a clue what this psycho you worship is really doing?

It looks like Obama got his way.

Yes he did. That war mongerer. Now where is Maggie May? Wake up Maggie I think I've got something to say to you

 

[Spoonman]

You can't make this shit up

Obama endorses military action to stop Gadhafi

After weeks of hesitation and divisions among his advisers, President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed military action against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, saying U.S. values and credibility are at stake to stop "the potential for mass murder" of innocents.


The top news headlines on current events from Yahoo! News

 

[MaggieMae]

Obviously they're talking about all different options based on different scenarios. But that's a little different than your blanket statement that "IDK, that slapnutz Obama said he feels we should go in." Obama has said no such thing.

Yes, he is repositioning forces around Libya because he wants to sit aroung the campfire and sing cumbaya. Do you even have a clue what this psycho you worship is really doing?

It looks like Obama got his way.

I guess that dispels the theory that Obama is a cozy pal of G-daffy, doesn't it... Now I suppose I must concentrate on teaching you idiots that Obama does not want another ground war to develop in the Mideast, regardless of UN approval of a flyover which may generate such action.

In the meantime, please educate ME as to "what he is really doing." This ought to be good. Be sure to quote Beck or Limbaugh for clarity.

 

[MaggieMae]

Yes, he is repositioning forces around Libya because he wants to sit aroung the campfire and sing cumbaya. Do you even have a clue what this psycho you worship is really doing?

It looks like Obama got his way.

Yes he did. That war mongerer. Now where is Maggie May? Wake up Maggie I think I've got something to say to you

Sometimes I need to take an entire day off to purge my brain of the nonsense I see coming from you lunatics who appear to be breeding, and watch the Disney Channel just to prove to myself that cartoon characters make more sense than some of you do.

 

[MaggieMae]

You can't make this shit up

Obama endorses military action to stop Gadhafi

After weeks of hesitation and divisions among his advisers, President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed military action against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, saying U.S. values and credibility are at stake to stop "the potential for mass murder" of innocents.


The top news headlines on current events from Yahoo! News

If only more time had been taken to evaluate the situations for the other two wars we're now heavily invested in, including even more time to decide upon increasing the troop level and mission change in Afghanistan. Do you really think your Johnny-on-the-spot decision making would be better? That's why you're an asshole.

 

[Spoonman]

You can't make this shit up

Obama endorses military action to stop Gadhafi

After weeks of hesitation and divisions among his advisers, President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed military action against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, saying U.S. values and credibility are at stake to stop "the potential for mass murder" of innocents.


The top news headlines on current events from Yahoo! News

If only more time had been taken to evaluate the situations for the other two wars we're now heavily invested in, including even more time to decide upon increasing the troop level and mission change in Afghanistan. Do you really think your Johnny-on-the-spot decision making would be better? That's why you're an asshole.

So maggie, did gadhafi attack us? was he making WMD's? Has he been a threat to us? Tell me why are we there? and why aren't all of you bleeding heart liberals out screaming they are a soveriegn nation like you did when bush was president? two faced hypocrites. I told you obama was oking attacking libya. and i was right.

 

[MaggieMae]

You can't make this shit up

Obama endorses military action to stop Gadhafi

After weeks of hesitation and divisions among his advisers, President Barack Obama on Friday endorsed military action against Libya's Moammar Gadhafi, saying U.S. values and credibility are at stake to stop "the potential for mass murder" of innocents.


The top news headlines on current events from Yahoo! News

If only more time had been taken to evaluate the situations for the other two wars we're now heavily invested in, including even more time to decide upon increasing the troop level and mission change in Afghanistan. Do you really think your Johnny-on-the-spot decision making would be better? That's why you're an asshole.

So maggie, did gadhafi attack us? was he making WMD's? Has he been a threat to us? Tell me why are we there? and why aren't all of you bleeding heart liberals out screaming they are a soveriegn nation like you did when bush was president? two faced hypocrites. I told you obama was oking attacking libya. and i was right.

Well of course between the time I posted that last remark, missile strikes have begun, and of course YOU change the entire tone of the previous exchange between us as my being already privy to that. Of course I was not, but that didn't stop you.

No, I do NOT like the fact that the US has been the first to engage in the enforcement of a no-fly zone, and no, I do NOT believe that this will be the first of only "three" increments to achieving that goal and then we'll be outta there. I think it was a mistake, just like I thought bombardment of Baghdad was a mistake. It will create another civil war, and the US will be right in the middle of it. How can it not be?

No hypocrite here on that issue. Maybe you should stop assuming what other people think and just shut the fuck up until you actually know.