Obama needs to be tried for war crimes

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ain't nobody a victim. And there's nobody crying. I have been doing fine...well, before you came on the scene. And I'll be doing well, long after you leave. There is no misery. I'm fine. You're the one "disturbed".

Make up your mind dude. You're either an emasculated male or you're not.

All the attempts to emasculate me have failed, obviously. That hasn't stopped your ilk from trying it. You people have tried it here, to no avail. I'm merely pointing out that you're trying it, not admitting that you succeeded, on any level. I gave the reason for the root cause of broken homes, deserted by fathers, and black on black crime as the continued emasculation of the African-American male, stemming from slavery and extending to today. Reading comprehension is fundamental.

What pray tell is my ilk? And I have attempted to uplift you as a human being. You are the one claiming to be an emasculated male.

And I have told you that blaming bad actions on anything that happened more than a century ago is nothing but laughable. By your logic, Asians wouldn't be so successful in America.

 

[poet]

Make up your mind dude. You're either an emasculated male or you're not.

All the attempts to emasculate me have failed, obviously. That hasn't stopped your ilk from trying it. You people have tried it here, to no avail. I'm merely pointing out that you're trying it, not admitting that you succeeded, on any level. I gave the reason for the root cause of broken homes, deserted by fathers, and black on black crime as the continued emasculation of the African-American male, stemming from slavery and extending to today. Reading comprehension is fundamental.

What pray tell is my ilk? And I have attempted to uplift you as a human being. You are the one claiming to be an emasculated male.

And I have told you that blaming bad actions on anything that happened more than a century ago is nothing but laughable. By your logic, Asians wouldn't be so successful in America.

Please. With friends like you, who needs enemies? Seriously? Attempted to uplift me? LOL
Nowhere did I claim to be an emasculated male. You got the wrong one, baby.
Bad actions are still going on? What universe are you living in?? From the demonization of President Obama and the black community, to the right's "war on women, gays, and anybody else that aren't white conservative males". Asians are vying for the new majority spot...after Hispanics, who displaced you.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

All the attempts to emasculate me have failed, obviously. That hasn't stopped your ilk from trying it. You people have tried it here, to no avail. I'm merely pointing out that you're trying it, not admitting that you succeeded, on any level. I gave the reason for the root cause of broken homes, deserted by fathers, and black on black crime as the continued emasculation of the African-American male, stemming from slavery and extending to today. Reading comprehension is fundamental.

What pray tell is my ilk? And I have attempted to uplift you as a human being. You are the one claiming to be an emasculated male.

And I have told you that blaming bad actions on anything that happened more than a century ago is nothing but laughable. By your logic, Asians wouldn't be so successful in America.

Please. With friends like you, who needs enemies? Seriously? Attempted to uplift me? LOL
Nowhere did I claim to be an emasculated male. You got the wrong one, baby.
Bad actions are still going on? What universe are you living in?? From the demonization of President Obama and the black community, to the right's "war on women, gays, and anybody else that aren't white conservative males". Asians are vying for the new majority spot...after Hispanics, who displaced you.

I never claimed to be your friend. But that doesn't make me disingenuous either. I love that you like to claim how much of a victim you are on a macro scale, but when it hits home, you're not having it. Maybe you should do some soul searching, instead of reciting soulless platitudes.

Also, you don't know if I'm white. Funny that you'd assume such a thing. Or not a funny at all. You're just a racist. That's why you're trying to brag that Hispanics have replaced whites. Too bad, the data doesn't support that theory. But this shows your end game; **** ******. And you'll tell whatever lie you have to tell to make it happen.

By the way, I do think you're an emasculated male. The only thing is, you've emasculated yourself by not having simple human dignity.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Obama just killed eleven children. He needs to be tried for war crimes.

BBC News - Afghan children 'killed by Nato air strike in Shigal'

I love how half of the people here did not even read the article. A majority of you all want Obama's head on a pike because of this, but I think you missed the biggest point of the story. It clearly said in the article that it was a massive US and Afghan operation to hit some HV Taliban fighters and a weapons cache. The article then goes on to say that it was the Afghan Security Forces that called in the air strike that killed the civilians. Am I the only one that read that? Moreover, the Taliban and the like have declared "war" on America, as we have likewise declared a "war on terror." Since both sides have stated that they are at war with each other, this is exactly what happens: innocent people die. It is an inescapable factor of war, which is what makes it such a travesty. But only the dead have seen the end of war.

 

[Pete7469]

You know, as much as I detest the moonbat messiah and hold everyone of his mindless acolytes in the deepest contempt I can't condemn that idiot if he's killing muj. Even if they're kids. Those kids aren't going to grow up and become crusaders, they're at best going to be rock farmers who kill each other according to which tribe is at war for each season.

I'm not going to contribute to second guessing what happens in the theater of war. Everything else is fair game, his ugly ass wookie wife telling us what too eat, his spoiled pisspot brats having vacations Rothschild's great great grandkids don't get, or his utter failures on every other issue.

Where and to whom does the "theater of war" extend? Does it extend to our "ally" countries? Does it extend to 16 year old Americans? Think about what you are saying and what those in the ME must think about such words.

I understand your point, and obviously I don't think any president should be able to bomb any place he likes. However, if there were actual instances where the moonbat messiah, Bush, or anyone else committed a gross violation of international war crimes law there would be consequences. No one in our government, or any other government has raised a compelling case that "war crimes" have been committed.

Now has obozo been quilty of murder through his orders? I would say emphatically YES. I would say every president who has ever sat in office during every conflict we've been involved in has probably issued orders that led to the death of someone who didn't deserve it. I don't like it of course, but I don't expect perfection from men.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama just killed eleven children. He needs to be tried for war crimes.

BBC News - Afghan children 'killed by Nato air strike in Shigal'

I love how half of the people here did not even read the article. A majority of you all want Obama's head on a pike because of this, but I think you missed the biggest point of the story. It clearly said in the article that it was a massive US and Afghan operation to hit some HV Taliban fighters and a weapons cache. The article then goes on to say that it was the Afghan Security Forces that called in the air strike that killed the civilians. Am I the only one that read that? Moreover, the Taliban and the like have declared "war" on America, as we have likewise declared a "war on terror." Since both sides have stated that they are at war with each other, this is exactly what happens: innocent people die. It is an inescapable factor of war, which is what makes it such a travesty. But only the dead have seen the end of war.

Let's assume all of that is true. Has Obama not executed the same wars that liberals condemned? Has Obama not used military strikes that killed civilians? I'm not calling for Obama's head on a pike. I'm pointing out that liberals did use these happenings as a reason to call for Bush's head. Now, you're silent. That's not courage. That's no fortitude. That's not righteous indignation. That's cowardice.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You know, as much as I detest the moonbat messiah and hold everyone of his mindless acolytes in the deepest contempt I can't condemn that idiot if he's killing muj. Even if they're kids. Those kids aren't going to grow up and become crusaders, they're at best going to be rock farmers who kill each other according to which tribe is at war for each season.

I'm not going to contribute to second guessing what happens in the theater of war. Everything else is fair game, his ugly ass wookie wife telling us what too eat, his spoiled pisspot brats having vacations Rothschild's great great grandkids don't get, or his utter failures on every other issue.

Where and to whom does the "theater of war" extend? Does it extend to our "ally" countries? Does it extend to 16 year old Americans? Think about what you are saying and what those in the ME must think about such words.

I understand your point, and obviously I don't think any president should be able to bomb any place he likes. However, if there were actual instances where the moonbat messiah, Bush, or anyone else committed a gross violation of international war crimes law there would be consequences. No one in our government, or any other government has raised a compelling case that "war crimes" have been committed.

Now has obozo been quilty of murder through his orders? I would say emphatically YES. I would say every president who has ever sat in office during every conflict we've been involved in has probably issued orders that led to the death of someone who didn't deserve it. I don't like it of course, but I don't expect perfection from men.

That's the pragmatic view. My point is that the pragmatic view applies only to liberal presidents for liberals.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Obama just killed eleven children. He needs to be tried for war crimes.

BBC News - Afghan children 'killed by Nato air strike in Shigal'

I love how half of the people here did not even read the article. A majority of you all want Obama's head on a pike because of this, but I think you missed the biggest point of the story. It clearly said in the article that it was a massive US and Afghan operation to hit some HV Taliban fighters and a weapons cache. The article then goes on to say that it was the Afghan Security Forces that called in the air strike that killed the civilians. Am I the only one that read that? Moreover, the Taliban and the like have declared "war" on America, as we have likewise declared a "war on terror." Since both sides have stated that they are at war with each other, this is exactly what happens: innocent people die. It is an inescapable factor of war, which is what makes it such a travesty. But only the dead have seen the end of war.

Let's assume all of that is true. Has Obama not executed the same wars that liberals condemned? Has Obama not used military strikes that killed civilians? I'm not calling for Obama's head on a pike. I'm pointing out that liberals did use these happenings as a reason to call for Bush's head. Now, you're silent. That's not courage. That's no fortitude. That's not righteous indignation. That's cowardice.

No it is not. Obama has not executed the same wars as Bush. How could you say that? What sovereign nation did Obama invade based on lies? I think the reason that people were/are calling for Bush's head is because he based an entire war on a lie. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and were not funding them, and letting them use Iraq to train fighters. Iraq was not seeking to make nuclear weapons either. So sense all of Bush's reasons for going to war were illegitimate, that subsequently made his invasion illegitimate. And since his illegitimate war caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, people wanted/want his head.

I personally feel he (Bush) should have to face consequences of his actions. He lied to the entire world, to start a war with a sovereign nation, which costs thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. And he just gets to walk away like a smooth criminal, after he and all his Halliburton buddies got rich from the "reconstruction" projects in Iraq. That is fuckin bullshit if you ask me. And it has not a goddamn thing to do with him being a republican, and everything to do with him being a piece of shit.

 

[S.J.]

I love how half of the people here did not even read the article. A majority of you all want Obama's head on a pike because of this, but I think you missed the biggest point of the story. It clearly said in the article that it was a massive US and Afghan operation to hit some HV Taliban fighters and a weapons cache. The article then goes on to say that it was the Afghan Security Forces that called in the air strike that killed the civilians. Am I the only one that read that? Moreover, the Taliban and the like have declared "war" on America, as we have likewise declared a "war on terror." Since both sides have stated that they are at war with each other, this is exactly what happens: innocent people die. It is an inescapable factor of war, which is what makes it such a travesty. But only the dead have seen the end of war.

Let's assume all of that is true. Has Obama not executed the same wars that liberals condemned? Has Obama not used military strikes that killed civilians? I'm not calling for Obama's head on a pike. I'm pointing out that liberals did use these happenings as a reason to call for Bush's head. Now, you're silent. That's not courage. That's no fortitude. That's not righteous indignation. That's cowardice.

No it is not. Obama has not executed the same wars as Bush. How could you say that? What sovereign nation did Obama invade based on lies? I think the reason that people were/are calling for Bush's head is because he based an entire war on a lie. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and were not funding them, and letting them use Iraq to train fighters. Iraq was not seeking to make nuclear weapons either. So sense all of Bush's reasons for going to war were illegitimate, that subsequently made his invasion illegitimate. And since his illegitimate war caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, people wanted/want his head.

I personally feel he (Bush) should have to face consequences of his actions. He lied to the entire world, to start a war with a sovereign nation, which costs thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. And he just gets to walk away like a smooth criminal, after he and all his Halliburton buddies got rich from the "reconstruction" projects in Iraq. That is fuckin bullshit if you ask me. And it has not a goddamn thing to do with him being a republican, and everything to do with him being a piece of shit.

You dumb ******, Bush invaded Iraq based on the same information Clinton used to do the same thing. The only reason Clinton didn't attack Iraq was because he failed to get political support for it. It wasn't based on a lie, because Saddam moved the WMD's to Syria. If Saddam never had WMD's, wtf did he use on the Iranians and the Kurds??? You speak from a position of ignorance.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I love how half of the people here did not even read the article. A majority of you all want Obama's head on a pike because of this, but I think you missed the biggest point of the story. It clearly said in the article that it was a massive US and Afghan operation to hit some HV Taliban fighters and a weapons cache. The article then goes on to say that it was the Afghan Security Forces that called in the air strike that killed the civilians. Am I the only one that read that? Moreover, the Taliban and the like have declared "war" on America, as we have likewise declared a "war on terror." Since both sides have stated that they are at war with each other, this is exactly what happens: innocent people die. It is an inescapable factor of war, which is what makes it such a travesty. But only the dead have seen the end of war.

Let's assume all of that is true. Has Obama not executed the same wars that liberals condemned? Has Obama not used military strikes that killed civilians? I'm not calling for Obama's head on a pike. I'm pointing out that liberals did use these happenings as a reason to call for Bush's head. Now, you're silent. That's not courage. That's no fortitude. That's not righteous indignation. That's cowardice.

No it is not. Obama has not executed the same wars as Bush. How could you say that? What sovereign nation did Obama invade based on lies? I think the reason that people were/are calling for Bush's head is because he based an entire war on a lie. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and were not funding them, and letting them use Iraq to train fighters. Iraq was not seeking to make nuclear weapons either. So sense all of Bush's reasons for going to war were illegitimate, that subsequently made his invasion illegitimate. And since his illegitimate war caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, people wanted/want his head.

I personally feel he (Bush) should have to face consequences of his actions. He lied to the entire world, to start a war with a sovereign nation, which costs thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. And he just gets to walk away like a smooth criminal, after he and all his Halliburton buddies got rich from the "reconstruction" projects in Iraq. That is fuckin bullshit if you ask me. And it has not a goddamn thing to do with him being a republican, and everything to do with him being a piece of shit.

First off. That it was a lie is just your opinion. But let's move past that. Liberals argue that Iraq and Afghanistan were not necessary. Why then did Obama stay in Afghanistan all of this time? You can't even answer that question. And if you can't answer that question then you yourself are embracing a lie by supporting him.

Second off. i don't think the so-called innocent people who are dying in Afghanistan are overly worried about whether or not it is a 'lie' that's killing them. So you're distinction is absurd and speaks to your selective righteous indignation.

 

[Cowman]

When NATO forces die, and they happen to be U.S. soldiers, Liberals harken back to Bush on whom (in their minds) the blame solely rests.

When NATO forces kill children, well... that's NATO and not Obama.

You know the hypocrisy road is NOT something you guys want to go down... because you're going to get covered in so much shit.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When NATO forces die, and they happen to be U.S. soldiers, Liberals harken back to Bush on whom (in their minds) the blame solely rests.

When NATO forces kill children, well... that's NATO and not Obama.

You know the hypocrisy road is NOT something you guys want to go down... because you're going to get covered in so much shit.

You're right, he will, since you supply most of it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

When NATO forces die, and they happen to be U.S. soldiers, Liberals harken back to Bush on whom (in their minds) the blame solely rests.

When NATO forces kill children, well... that's NATO and not Obama.

You know the hypocrisy road is NOT something you guys want to go down... because you're going to get covered in so much shit.

I don't care about your arguments against conservatives; real or made-up. I'm still waiting for one liberal to say that Obama should be prosecuted. That'd be sacrilege in the church of Obama though.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Let's assume all of that is true. Has Obama not executed the same wars that liberals condemned? Has Obama not used military strikes that killed civilians? I'm not calling for Obama's head on a pike. I'm pointing out that liberals did use these happenings as a reason to call for Bush's head. Now, you're silent. That's not courage. That's no fortitude. That's not righteous indignation. That's cowardice.

No it is not. Obama has not executed the same wars as Bush. How could you say that? What sovereign nation did Obama invade based on lies? I think the reason that people were/are calling for Bush's head is because he based an entire war on a lie. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and were not funding them, and letting them use Iraq to train fighters. Iraq was not seeking to make nuclear weapons either. So sense all of Bush's reasons for going to war were illegitimate, that subsequently made his invasion illegitimate. And since his illegitimate war caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, people wanted/want his head.

I personally feel he (Bush) should have to face consequences of his actions. He lied to the entire world, to start a war with a sovereign nation, which costs thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. And he just gets to walk away like a smooth criminal, after he and all his Halliburton buddies got rich from the "reconstruction" projects in Iraq. That is fuckin bullshit if you ask me. And it has not a goddamn thing to do with him being a republican, and everything to do with him being a piece of shit.

You dumb ******, Bush invaded Iraq based on the same information Clinton used to do the same thing. The only reason Clinton didn't attack Iraq was because he failed to get political support for it. It wasn't based on a lie, because Saddam moved the WMD's to Syria. If Saddam never had WMD's, wtf did he use on the Iranians and the Kurds??? You speak from a position of ignorance.

Saddam moved the WMDs to Syria now thats a first.. did you come up with that all by yourself? I surely would like to see some proof of that. Can you back up your statement simpleton?

 

[WethePeopleUS]

Let's assume all of that is true. Has Obama not executed the same wars that liberals condemned? Has Obama not used military strikes that killed civilians? I'm not calling for Obama's head on a pike. I'm pointing out that liberals did use these happenings as a reason to call for Bush's head. Now, you're silent. That's not courage. That's no fortitude. That's not righteous indignation. That's cowardice.

No it is not. Obama has not executed the same wars as Bush. How could you say that? What sovereign nation did Obama invade based on lies? I think the reason that people were/are calling for Bush's head is because he based an entire war on a lie. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and were not funding them, and letting them use Iraq to train fighters. Iraq was not seeking to make nuclear weapons either. So sense all of Bush's reasons for going to war were illegitimate, that subsequently made his invasion illegitimate. And since his illegitimate war caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, people wanted/want his head.

I personally feel he (Bush) should have to face consequences of his actions. He lied to the entire world, to start a war with a sovereign nation, which costs thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. And he just gets to walk away like a smooth criminal, after he and all his Halliburton buddies got rich from the "reconstruction" projects in Iraq. That is fuckin bullshit if you ask me. And it has not a goddamn thing to do with him being a republican, and everything to do with him being a piece of shit.

First off. That it was a lie is just your opinion. But let's move past that. Liberals argue that Iraq and Afghanistan were not necessary. Why then did Obama stay in Afghanistan all of this time? You can't even answer that question. And if you can't answer that question then you yourself are embracing a lie by supporting him.

Second off. i don't think the so-called innocent people who are dying in Afghanistan are overly worried about whether or not it is a 'lie' that's killing them. So you're distinction is absurd and speaks to your selective righteous indignation.

First off- to answer your question about why Obama has "stayed" in Afghanistan, it is quite simple, the country cannot yet defend itself on its own, therefore some of our troops have to stay to help train an Afghan security force. That kinda comes with the territory of invading a country. However, we are now pulling out. If I need to provide links to security issues and US pullout I will, but a simple google search will provide numerous articles for you to educate yourself on.

Second off- I never said that invading Afghanistan was illegitimate, I said Iraq was. Since Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, and their FOB was in Afghanistan, the US was justified in invading. So save your finger pointing and your selective righteous indignation slurs for someone else

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No it is not. Obama has not executed the same wars as Bush. How could you say that? What sovereign nation did Obama invade based on lies? I think the reason that people were/are calling for Bush's head is because he based an entire war on a lie. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and were not funding them, and letting them use Iraq to train fighters. Iraq was not seeking to make nuclear weapons either. So sense all of Bush's reasons for going to war were illegitimate, that subsequently made his invasion illegitimate. And since his illegitimate war caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, people wanted/want his head.

I personally feel he (Bush) should have to face consequences of his actions. He lied to the entire world, to start a war with a sovereign nation, which costs thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. And he just gets to walk away like a smooth criminal, after he and all his Halliburton buddies got rich from the "reconstruction" projects in Iraq. That is fuckin bullshit if you ask me. And it has not a goddamn thing to do with him being a republican, and everything to do with him being a piece of shit.

You dumb ******, Bush invaded Iraq based on the same information Clinton used to do the same thing. The only reason Clinton didn't attack Iraq was because he failed to get political support for it. It wasn't based on a lie, because Saddam moved the WMD's to Syria. If Saddam never had WMD's, wtf did he use on the Iranians and the Kurds??? You speak from a position of ignorance.

Saddam moved the WMDs to Syria now thats a first.. did you come up with that all by yourself? I surely would like to see some proof of that. Can you back up your statement simpleton?

Conservatives and liberals are both stupid if they think that Clinton, Bush, Obama all aren't/didn't lie or embellish about some major items in regards to a lot of things, including war. I mean, you guys can get in the mud about that all you want. But my point is that liberals wanted to throw the book at Bush and give Obama a kiss on the lips for virtually the same executions in regards to war.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No it is not. Obama has not executed the same wars as Bush. How could you say that? What sovereign nation did Obama invade based on lies? I think the reason that people were/are calling for Bush's head is because he based an entire war on a lie. Iraq did not have WMDs. Iraq had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and were not funding them, and letting them use Iraq to train fighters. Iraq was not seeking to make nuclear weapons either. So sense all of Bush's reasons for going to war were illegitimate, that subsequently made his invasion illegitimate. And since his illegitimate war caused hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, people wanted/want his head.

I personally feel he (Bush) should have to face consequences of his actions. He lied to the entire world, to start a war with a sovereign nation, which costs thousands of lives, and billions of dollars. And he just gets to walk away like a smooth criminal, after he and all his Halliburton buddies got rich from the "reconstruction" projects in Iraq. That is fuckin bullshit if you ask me. And it has not a goddamn thing to do with him being a republican, and everything to do with him being a piece of shit.

First off. That it was a lie is just your opinion. But let's move past that. Liberals argue that Iraq and Afghanistan were not necessary. Why then did Obama stay in Afghanistan all of this time? You can't even answer that question. And if you can't answer that question then you yourself are embracing a lie by supporting him.

Second off. i don't think the so-called innocent people who are dying in Afghanistan are overly worried about whether or not it is a 'lie' that's killing them. So you're distinction is absurd and speaks to your selective righteous indignation.

First off- to answer your question about why Obama has "stayed" in Afghanistan, it is quite simple, the country cannot yet defend itself on its own, therefore some of our troops have to stay to help train an Afghan security force. That kinda comes with the territory of invading a country. However, we are now pulling out. If I need to provide links to security issues and US pullout I will, but a simple google search will provide numerous articles for you to educate yourself on.

Second off- I never said that invading Afghanistan was illegitimate, I said Iraq was. Since Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, and their FOB was in Afghanistan, the US was justified in invading. So save your finger pointing and your selective righteous indignation slurs for someone else

Suddenly, liberals care about whether countries can defend themselves? By that basis, ya'll should have been supporting going into Iraq to take out a brutal dictator. By that basis, you wouldn't have wanted to cut and run from Vietnam either. Spare us the bunk, bro.

Also, us staying in Afghanistan is totally contrary to what libs were saying in 08. Totally contrary. So give me a ******* break. You're just moving the goalposts.

And I'm fine if you were originally for Afghanistan and against Iraq. So you're totally mixing up my righteous indignation point. That applied to liberals acting like Bush was the devil and Obama is so great when there's so much similarities in their military actions; particularly in regards to major things that liberals were crapping their pants about before. It is phony righteous indignation. That's exactly what it was.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

First off. That it was a lie is just your opinion. But let's move past that. Liberals argue that Iraq and Afghanistan were not necessary. Why then did Obama stay in Afghanistan all of this time? You can't even answer that question. And if you can't answer that question then you yourself are embracing a lie by supporting him.

Second off. i don't think the so-called innocent people who are dying in Afghanistan are overly worried about whether or not it is a 'lie' that's killing them. So you're distinction is absurd and speaks to your selective righteous indignation.

First off- to answer your question about why Obama has "stayed" in Afghanistan, it is quite simple, the country cannot yet defend itself on its own, therefore some of our troops have to stay to help train an Afghan security force. That kinda comes with the territory of invading a country. However, we are now pulling out. If I need to provide links to security issues and US pullout I will, but a simple google search will provide numerous articles for you to educate yourself on.

Second off- I never said that invading Afghanistan was illegitimate, I said Iraq was. Since Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, and their FOB was in Afghanistan, the US was justified in invading. So save your finger pointing and your selective righteous indignation slurs for someone else

Suddenly, liberals care about whether countries can defend themselves? By that basis, ya'll should have been supporting going into Iraq to take out a brutal dictator. By that basis, you wouldn't have wanted to cut and run from Vietnam either. Spare us the bunk, bro.

Also, us staying in Afghanistan is totally contrary to what libs were saying in 08. Totally contrary. So give me a ******* break. You're just moving the goalposts.

And I'm fine if you were originally for Afghanistan and against Iraq. So you're totally mixing up my righteous indignation point. That applied to liberals acting like Bush was the devil and Obama is so great when there's so much similarities in their military actions; particularly in regards to major things that liberals were crapping their pants about before. It is phony righteous indignation. That's exactly what it was.

I am not a liberal (so please refrain from lumping me in that group ), and I think your first line of reasoning is a little faulty. The reason I say that is a) Vietnam was a completely different situation all together. The only was we could have stabilized that country to was kill almost everyone in the North. And how would that reflected upon us? b) I can't see how saying that invading a country and making sure the new government can defend itself, is the same as supporting taking out a dictator in Iraq.

And the bottom line is Bush got us involved in 2 wars, to which he left Obama to clean up. Obama has pulled out of Iraq, and we are working on pulling out of Afghanistan. Obama has yet to start a war, based on a lie or not. I am simply stating facts, however one may chose to argue with it. I am not arguing for or against Obama. I just love how he is blamed for mistakes made by the previous administration. I know Obama isn't perfect, but it has been a long time since we have seen a leader we can aspire to.

 

[WethePeopleUS]

You dumb ******, Bush invaded Iraq based on the same information Clinton used to do the same thing. The only reason Clinton didn't attack Iraq was because he failed to get political support for it. It wasn't based on a lie, because Saddam moved the WMD's to Syria. If Saddam never had WMD's, wtf did he use on the Iranians and the Kurds??? You speak from a position of ignorance.

Saddam moved the WMDs to Syria now thats a first.. did you come up with that all by yourself? I surely would like to see some proof of that. Can you back up your statement simpleton?

Conservatives and liberals are both stupid if they think that Clinton, Bush, Obama all aren't/didn't lie or embellish about some major items in regards to a lot of things, including war. I mean, you guys can get in the mud about that all you want. But my point is that liberals wanted to throw the book at Bush and give Obama a kiss on the lips for virtually the same executions in regards to war.

I have yet to see how you have proved Obama and Bush have committed the same offenses when it comes to war. Please cite a source that shows any war Obama started. Legitimate or not. Bush had 1 war that was justified (Afghanistan), and 1 that wasn't (Iraq). Please list wars Obama has started. And do not cite drone attacks and random CIA or Spec Ops operations, because every single one of our presidents have indulged in said activities. I am talking about wars.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

First off- to answer your question about why Obama has "stayed" in Afghanistan, it is quite simple, the country cannot yet defend itself on its own, therefore some of our troops have to stay to help train an Afghan security force. That kinda comes with the territory of invading a country. However, we are now pulling out. If I need to provide links to security issues and US pullout I will, but a simple google search will provide numerous articles for you to educate yourself on.

Second off- I never said that invading Afghanistan was illegitimate, I said Iraq was. Since Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11, and their FOB was in Afghanistan, the US was justified in invading. So save your finger pointing and your selective righteous indignation slurs for someone else

Suddenly, liberals care about whether countries can defend themselves? By that basis, ya'll should have been supporting going into Iraq to take out a brutal dictator. By that basis, you wouldn't have wanted to cut and run from Vietnam either. Spare us the bunk, bro.

Also, us staying in Afghanistan is totally contrary to what libs were saying in 08. Totally contrary. So give me a ******* break. You're just moving the goalposts.

And I'm fine if you were originally for Afghanistan and against Iraq. So you're totally mixing up my righteous indignation point. That applied to liberals acting like Bush was the devil and Obama is so great when there's so much similarities in their military actions; particularly in regards to major things that liberals were crapping their pants about before. It is phony righteous indignation. That's exactly what it was.

I am not a liberal (so please refrain from lumping me in that group ), and I think your first line of reasoning is a little faulty. The reason I say that is a) Vietnam was a completely different situation all together. The only was we could have stabilized that country to was kill almost everyone in the North. And how would that reflected upon us? b) I can't see how saying that invading a country and making sure the new government can defend itself, is the same as supporting taking out a dictator in Iraq.

And the bottom line is Bush got us involved in 2 wars, to which he left Obama to clean up. Obama has pulled out of Iraq, and we are working on pulling out of Afghanistan. Obama has yet to start a war, based on a lie or not. I am simply stating facts, however one may chose to argue with it. I am not arguing for or against Obama. I just love how he is blamed for mistakes made by the previous administration. I know Obama isn't perfect, but it has been a long time since we have seen a leader we can aspire to.

Bush didn't start the Afghanistan war. 9/11 happened. Look it's just basically semantics, who started what war. A president chooses to be at war or not. And at this point Afghanistan is his war. Libya was also his war even if not on the scale of the other war.

But that's not what this is about. This is about liberals wanting Bush's head for allegedly killing innocents. But the same standard is not applied to Obama by them. That's my point.