Obama = chickenhawk
Is Obama really a pacifist? What's really going on in Libya
Collapse
X
-
TexansFanSBR MVP
- 09-06-06
- 3365
#106Comment -
jcubs55SBR MVP
- 04-18-10
- 1023
#108The fact that several people quoted my post that bashed Obama and posted pics of Bush looking dumb is part of the problem. They assumed that because I was anti-Obama I must be a Bush-loving republican... pathetic. I don't play the bipartisan game and none of you should either. I happen to be a libertarian. I'm all about personal freedoms and a small/efficient government... which is the farthest thing from what we have now (aside from the freedom's that we already take for granted). The fact that people assume I'm affiliated to one of the BIG TWO parties just goes to show how well the manipulators of this country have everyone distracted. While you all argue between the two parties, this country is being run by both the same.Comment -
itchypickleSBR Posting Legend
- 11-05-09
- 21452
#109Why do people keep posting pics of Bush with the Mission Accomplished banner?
Him saying major combat operations in Iraq had ended is comparable to Obama saying all combat troops are out of Iraq... obviously the war wasn't over at "Mission Accomplished" (and it wasn't claimed to be by Bush), and obviously combat isn't over even though our "combat troops" are out of Iraq
King....you gonna make us one of Obama hanging the 'closed' sign above Gitmo?
Under 8% unemployment for the blown Trillion bucks?
or better yet...all troops out of Afghanistan by 2011...then 2014....now its been pushed to indefiniteComment -
King MayanSBR Posting Legend
- 09-22-10
- 21326
#111Comment -
itchypickleSBR Posting Legend
- 11-05-09
- 21452
#112.
Comment -
kingdomSBR Posting Legend
- 07-25-10
- 10099
#113us has had to police the world 4 ever. because who else will? real talk.my problem is that we pretend nothing is happening in mexico with the drug cartels. spring break for teens isnt even safe. i feel if this was canada the concerns and actions would be so different. brown will never get the attention white will unfortunately. and i have friends here who's family is dying. hispanics are over 13% of population. can we address their interests as well??Comment -
kingdomSBR Posting Legend
- 07-25-10
- 10099
#114Obama is going to do what he does best. He will "half ass" it in Libya. He wants Gadaffi to go, but he will not force him to go. He says that he will not use ground forces, which ofcourse is a blatent lie. If anyone knows anything in here about the missles being used against Libya, they would know that it takes people ON THE GROUND to guide those missles to their targets. I know this for a fact. I have a grandson in Special Forces that does exactly that. Obama is stupid enough to think that we can bomb Libya, and that action alone will get Gadaffi to stop murdering his people. He wants Gadaffi out, but his Military Advisors have been ordered not to target Gadaffi. They even admit that it is quite possible that Gadaffi will come out of this as the leader of Libya. Obama will allow the Air Force to destroy Libyan troops and tanks that target civilians, but will not allow the Air Force to help the Rebels. This is the policy of a complete and total moron. Obama fits that description perfectly. President "Half Ass". That is what he be most remembered for.Comment -
kingdomSBR Posting Legend
- 07-25-10
- 10099
#115When America invaded Iraq under Bush, the media crushed him for it. Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein killed tens of thousands of innocent people and was an imminent threat to world peace according to all western intelligence, the media just crushed Bush. It wasn't good enough that Saddam was a threat to innocent people in his country.
But here we are attacking another muslim country under Obama. Ghadafi is not killing innocent people. He is killing people who are trying to kill him. So attacking Ghadafi is much worse than attacking Saddam was. But the media remains on the side of Obama. Why?i have been scared of hussein since '91. the guy who complied with un sanctions. who fought those attempting to overthrow him.imminent threat??? yeah he is. lol. and not bin laden. the guy who killed 5k people and makes videos rubbing it in. itk was a bully attack against hussein and very obvious. tyrants thru the years never received the harsh treatment he did. when bush couldn't find bin laden he needed a scapegoat and everyone knew the bad name of suddam hussein. its like you whoopin my ass, but i go beat up your cousin in response. there is absolutely no correlation between bin laden and hussein and if you believe so you shouldnt have dropped out of the second grade.
Comment -
Dark HorseSBR Posting Legend
- 12-14-05
- 13764
#116Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. The only two guys you can trust in DC. One from the left, the other from the right. Pay attention to them. They do not talk the company line, nor their parties ideologies. And what they say is often dramatically different from the bleating of all the sheep who sold out to corporate interests. Both agree that this act of war by Obama was unconstitutional.
Justin, I asked you about that 60 day window that you mentioned, allowing the president to go to war and get approval or disapproval two months after he's done so.
Already posted a link to Ron Paul's comments on this war. Here is Kucinich. You will note, in both cases, that there is none of the divide-and-conquer rhetoric that typifies the usual party politician: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pVo7-gOkqoLast edited by Dark Horse; 03-23-11, 07:52 AM.Comment -
philswinSBR MVP
- 04-18-07
- 1279
#117Should have gone to Congress 3 weeks ago and options presented and discussed. A clear discussion regarding exactly what the purpose of the mission, cost, timelines etc. When that info is received a vote is cast. Hopefully you have a unanimous (or close) vote for or against. If we vote for the mission, the politicians need to support the mission and the Military. When our Military is committed to a mission is not the time for politicians to be debating whether we should be there. What happened in Iraq was a joke, with almost unanimous support. The mission was just rubber-stamped by Congress and as soon as things were not going as planned, all of a sudden, the congress that voted for it did not understand what they voted for, no exit strategy, cost to high, this is not what I voted for. John Edwards was all of a sudden an Activist against the war blaming his wifes cancer for not focusing on the details when he voted for it. Many politicians were called on this and booted out of Congress as a result. Hold the Congress accountable make them vote.Comment -
itchypickleSBR Posting Legend
- 11-05-09
- 21452
#118us has had to police the world 4 ever. because who else will? real talk.my problem is that we pretend nothing is happening in mexico with the drug cartels. spring break for teens isnt even safe. i feel if this was canada the concerns and actions would be so different. brown will never get the attention white will unfortunately. and i have friends here who's family is dying. hispanics are over 13% of population. can we address their interests as well??
With that said, what makes you think an incursion into Mexico will be supported anytime soon? Common sense says secure the border like the FOB gates downrange with good ole Navy P3's overhead providing video surveillance and any group of people trying to break in....get the immediate attention of a QRF with orders to fire. Do this for about 8 months...and we'd see the violence drop dramatically.Comment -
19th HoleSBR Posting Legend
- 03-22-09
- 18927
#119Everybody knows it eh?
Well as we all know from gambling, what everybody knows is never what you need to know is it?
You speak of a "cover-up." That's one way to look at it. I think cover-story would be a better term. And it had nothing to do with greed or fighting daddy's war.
It had to do with maintaining the US's position as an unchallengeable global power. Which, if you understand the "peace through strength" dynamic, has always been a top priority for any sitting U.S. President. Some talk about it openly (Reagan), some pretend it doesn't exist (Carter/Clinton/Obama), but it is always there.
The fact is that Bush didn't trick anybody in congress, nor did he use the American people. What he did was get compliant consent from those in his party AND THE DEMOCRATS, to set about protecting the United States from major threats in the future. And they developed a plausible cover story to get the American people to go along with it.
There were enough Dems on the Senate Intelligence Committee and in other high places to expose Bush's "lies" from the get go. They didn't. And they didn't because that wasn't the plan.
The plan was to go into Iraq and take out Saddam real quick before he (or his crazy fukking sons) could use Iraq's vast resources to create a major threat the west would have much more trouble dealing with further down the line. And from there they could turn Iraq into a political ally, using the country not only as a staging point for efforts in Afghanistan, but also future operations against other foreign threats if they became necessary.
And in the beginning Bush had most everybody's support, as the Dems full well knew that if anything went wrong, they could just blame Bush for "lying" and distance themselves from the WMD argument and the decision to invade. As that was part of the deal. The ability to denounce the war if anything went wrong. Which they did after Iraq turned into a giant fiasco.
For if you'll recall, during the first few weeks nobody gave a shit. The general sense in the country was "We're invading Iraq again? Oh. Okay. What's on Sportscenter?"
But then shit turned out to be tougher than we anticipated. And the public started getting a little antsy. And before too long, after more and more American lives were lost, well it became a major shitstorm, and the Democrats had to run like they stole something. Which they did. They weren't going to lose their office over it. Who would? And that's how it shook down.
Look, no President is going to deliberately put US lives in harm's way simply for greed or revenge. Because those lives being put in harm's way, they know the deal. Maybe not every last man, but enough that America's military would collapse over night if they found out they were being used for such a hollow purpose.
The fact is that war has grown a lot more complicated than it used to be. And defending America's shores is increasingly difficult. When you're the top dog, no one cares if you fall. And many want to do the felling. This means that you have to do your best to determine one's enemies and threats before they become big enough to cut you down. Because once they've got everything in place, you're fukked. Either you're going down, or you're going to be severely wounded.
Do you remember some years back when the chic discussion in American politics was about "preemptive" military action? This was largely a non-issue when everyone thought there were WMD's. Because in that situation, of course preemptive action is acceptable. That's why the WMD's not being there is such a big deal to some people. Without the threat of nuclear war, a lot of people don't believe in preemptive military action.
But that chic argument that came out when Bush was in office about preemptive action was all encompassing. It wasn't simply about nuclear weapons. No. It was about preemptive action in general. And why? How come all these insiders and politicians who had originally supported the invasion of Iraq when there were WMD's were suddenly against any form of preemptive military action? Because that's what it was about from the outset.
It wasn't about nukes. It was about Iraq's development as a potential threat. It was about the future development of a nuclear state, not a current one. The last thing the U.S. needs is another country with nukes. That's just another country we have to spend resources to monitor, and have to worry about getting a nuke up our ass if we have to invade them. And if we just up and let everybody have nukes, eventually we won't have the man power to be able to cover our ass.
The war was never about Saddam already having WMD's. It was never about greed or revenge. It was about ensuring the safety of the United States through the continuation of the "peace through strength" doctrine. And the only problem was that we miscalculated the cost. If we had taken out Saddam in three weeks, nobody in this country would give a shit about the WMDs argument. The only reason we care is because we need some reason to explain all the death and misery that has been caused. We need something to believe in to make such sacrifices necessary. And for many people, the idea of engaging in preemptive military action when that action is only preempting a potential threat, and not an operational one, is just not enough. And that's why we got the cover story of WMD's.
The point is, the leaders of the free world not only have the job of protecting the people, but of also having to keep clear the consciences of those people they are protecting. And that's a difficult fukking job. Some choose to do it by "rallying around the flag" and building patriotic support against an enemy (Bush/FDR/LBJ/Nixon), and others choose to do it by constantly talking about peace while still engaging in military action (Obama/Clinton/Carter). Either way, that's the President's job. And it's an impossible job to perform without innocents getting caught up in the process.
We are the United States of America. We aren't perfect, but it ain't a perfect world we live in neither. Should we stand up for our imperfections or surrender to everyone else's?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Good read.
Well thought out explaination of a "cover story'.
Your perspective on this issue is very interesting
at the very least.Comment -
KindredSBR MVP
- 09-09-08
- 2901
#120No blood for oil....hippiecritsComment -
rsnnh12SBR MVP
- 09-26-10
- 3487
#121loli have been scared of hussein since '91. the guy who complied with un sanctions. who fought those attempting to overthrow him.imminent threat??? yeah he is. lol. and not bin laden. the guy who killed 5k people and makes videos rubbing it in. itk was a bully attack against hussein and very obvious. tyrants thru the years never received the harsh treatment he did. when bush couldn't find bin laden he needed a scapegoat and everyone knew the bad name of suddam hussein. its like you whoopin my ass, but i go beat up your cousin in response. there is absolutely no correlation between bin laden and hussein and if you believe so you shouldnt have dropped out of the second grade.
Comment -
FourLengthsClearSBR MVP
- 12-29-10
- 3808
#122
Many Libyans Jihadists found their way to Iraq during the peak of that insurgency but that group were bought-off by Ghadaffi 2 or 3 years ago.Comment -
BigdaddyQHSBR Posting Legend
- 07-13-09
- 19530
#123what was bay of pigs with one of our favorite prez and most failed operations???you cant tell the people everything. i was in the navy for years.clinton could have killed bin laden but failed. he's making an effort to fix things. prez is a tough job filled with tough choices when you inherit dual conflicts from a complete idiot. like a comedian once said, its ok to be a c student at yale, but that same guy shouldn't become president.and for the teabaggers that support brunette barbie, just go to youtube for plenty of laughs. i have many of her moments as favorites. would you prefer her and the old man leading the country lol....
My problem with Obama and his Libyan Policy is this. He want to have his cake and eat it too. He wants Gadaffi out, but is unwilling to allow his military to oust him. He talks out of both sides of his mouth. His own military tells him that it is doubtful that Gadaffi will be forced out in the near future with the military plan that Obama has laid out on the table. Obama has does this on every major issue, be it domestic or foreign, ever since he forced his healthcare plan on the American people, only to see his ratings drop dramatically, and his party get hammered in the midterm elections. Every since then, Obama has been afraid to do anything that might offend someone. So he talks out of both sides of his mouth, and does nothing.
Now I have no opinion about the reasons for taking action in Libya. What I am saying is this. Either crap or get off the pot. Either go in with the intention to oust Gadaffi, no matter what it takes, or do not go in at all. None of this half assed stuff. In or Out. Period. It is time for Obama to shut his big mouth and start producing. He looks like a total fool right now. If you were an enemy of America, would you worry about Obama, or laugh at him? The world is laughing at him right now.Comment -
DataSBR MVP
- 11-27-07
- 2236
#124I am sure there are many Islamic fundamentalists and anti-western fighters in this group but does it represent the majority or a relatively small minority? At this stage there is no way of knowing and the BBC/CNN coverage is doing little to shed any light on it.
Frankly, I am unsure what you are referring to. Gadhafi has been effectively oppressing militant Islamists in general and Al-Qaeda in particular being an anti-Al-Qaeda US ally in the region. He's been destroying them as they posed a threat to his rule. Before the rebellion, Al-Qaeda made assassinations attempts on him. Note, the US acts in this war as Al-Qaeda's ally. Al-Qaeda, as expected, prononced their support for the rebels and called for overthrowing Gadhafi. I see this as a new low of the US foreign policy. BTW, the previous low, in my opinion, was NOT Iraq but Kosovo.Comment -
BigdaddyQHSBR Posting Legend
- 07-13-09
- 19530
#125It is about time that Obama, and his Liberal do-gooders realize that "Democracy" will never work in most Arab nations at this time. To be perfectly frank about it, the Arab peoples do not have the knowledge or the ability to live in a "democracy". They must be led by the nose. Now as more and more Arabs are educated in the West, this will slowly change, but they are still decades away from such change. The fact that Arab nations cannot understand the concept of the separation of "Church and State", or "Mosk and State" if you will, prevents them from understanding what a democratic form of government really entails.Comment -
dom75SBR Wise Guy
- 10-11-10
- 779
#127I hope Obama isn't the Prez again. I know the US problems didn't happen overnight, but man it's been a few years since he has been in office and we are going on a downward spiral. It hurts one with any soul to see what has happened in other countries, but we need to focus on the Americans first. We are in a major money problem, but still we send money to other countries. We send food and supplies to other countries as well, and who pays for that, we do. Our teachers, police officers, firefighters, city workers, hell the list goes on and on are being laid off. The price of gas and food, everyday living goes up daily, weekly, monthly, but still the ones that do have a job don't get payraises. Just ticks me off when our goverment send money that we have paid into for taxes and so fourth only to have it go elsewhere. At the rate we are going, the next generation of kids will be under educated. Crime will rise, and more and more people will become homeless. I could go on and on, but basically it seem the US is slowly imploding. Thank you govenment we appreciate the hard work of slowly killing us all !Comment -
Emily_HainesSBR Posting Legend
- 04-14-09
- 15917
#12845 million on food stamps in this country and all our stupid leaders can do is take us to war. We take the collective bargaining rights away from the peasants, yet fire off 150 million dollar missiles because we don't like a guy on the other side of the world.Comment -
itchypickleSBR Posting Legend
- 11-05-09
- 21452
#129It is about time that Obama, and his Liberal do-gooders realize that "Democracy" will never work in most Arab nations at this time. To be perfectly frank about it, the Arab peoples do not have the knowledge or the ability to live in a "democracy". They must be led by the nose. Now as more and more Arabs are educated in the West, this will slowly change, but they are still decades away from such change. The fact that Arab nations cannot understand the concept of the separation of "Church and State", or "Mosk and State" if you will, prevents them from understanding what a democratic form of government really entails.Comment -
BstHcprSBR Sharp
- 01-02-11
- 377
#130I'll check, but I think dropping cruise missiles and killing a "couple hundred people" would constitute an attack.Comment -
C-GoldSBR Hall of Famer
- 09-04-10
- 6808
#131
You want to say old white people from rural parts are set in their ways? The middle east in general is extremely set in their ways. Having 51% impose their will on 49% will not work in these countries. It's actually a recipe for disaster.
To be fair Bush was pounding the democracy in Iraq argument too just as Obama is in Libya. To me Democracy is code word for "american influence" or Pro america. If Obama says we want Democracy in Libya that means we want to control Libya. These politicians just want control. Be it Bush be it Obama, republican or democrat, white boy from Texas or Halfrican from Hawaii. They want to control you and all the people internationally.
Obama wants Gaddaffi out he just doesn't have the balls to do it. Crap or get off the pot. This half assed crap doesn't work. You either take this guy out or you do nothing. Oh and I love how it's a coalition. There were something like 55 missles shot off and 53 of them were American missles. But lets say the French, Brits and everybody shot them off! It's like saying Michael Jordan 69 points and Jon Paxon 2 points dropped 71 points on the Cleveland Cavaliers. I'm sick of people trying to manipulate the way you think.Comment -
dinaro7SBR Wise Guy
- 12-06-09
- 888
#132i am a republican but give the pres a breakComment -
ex50warriorSBR MVP
- 10-10-09
- 3820
#133When America invaded Iraq under Bush, the media crushed him for it. Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein killed tens of thousands of innocent people and was an imminent threat to world peace according to all western intelligence, the media just crushed Bush. It wasn't good enough that Saddam was a threat to innocent people in his country.
But here we are attacking another muslim country under Obama. Ghadafi is not killing innocent people. He is killing people who are trying to kill him. So attacking Ghadafi is much worse than attacking Saddam was. But the media remains on the side of Obama. Why?
How the worm has turned--Hypocrits!Last edited by ex50warrior; 03-26-11, 11:00 AM.Comment -
losturmarblesSBR MVP
- 07-01-08
- 4604
#134Dark Horse,
This is the first post of yours with which I violently disagreed.
War Powers Act. President can control the military for 60 days awhile without congressional approval, as long as he tells them about it (which he did).
Was this an "attack"? Bush attacked Iraq. He send troops in, destroyed their military, occupied their capital, and took over the country.
The US has treaties (including military obligations) with other UN members. The US is a member of Nato, and has military treaties with Nato members. Italy is demanding that Nato head this whole thing (which makes sense).
Obama has been very cautious in this Libyan affair. I disagree with a lot he has done, but he has handled the Libyan civil war properly.
1. The War Powers Act doesn't grant the President a military dictatorship for 60 days. The War Powers Act was a lame attempt by Congress to LIMIT (not give) power of the executive branch after Nixon illegally invaded Cambodia. (He was already secretly bombing Cambodia over the previous year.)
2. How exactly did Obama consult with Congress when Congress was on vacation and NOT IN SESSION?!?!
3. The War Powers Act allows the President to send the milatary into action for 60 days A) after consulting Congress B) if neccessary to repel an imminent threat to the US and C) when there isn't time to ask for a declaration of war. A) He did NOT consult Congress B) Libya is NOT an imminent threat. C) He's refusing to call it a war.
4. FUKK THE UN and FUKK NATO. They do NOT supercede federal law, NOR the Constitution. Save your one world government for someone who subscribes to that bullshit. But since you do, then you should get your facts straight:
The United Nations Charter prohibits interference in internal affairs of member states. It strictly limits Chapter 7 military actions to threats to international peace and security, which Libya has never represented. So how the fuk can the UN Security Council can pass a resolution which allows "all necessary measures"? That shows you how worthless and defective and the UN is. The Security Council resolution stands in flagrant violation of the UN Charter. The resolution also contains an arms embargo against Libya which the US is already violating by arming the rebels through Egypt. This is your idea of handling the Libyan civil war properly.???Last edited by losturmarbles; 03-26-11, 12:07 PM.Comment -
losturmarblesSBR MVP
- 07-01-08
- 4604
#135BTW, no one I've ever seen on the left have called him a pacifist. It has always been a right-winger trying to make him out to be some hippy who will downsize the military and withdrawal us from all the *cough* "hard work" *cough* Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Which turned out to be totally wrong but it's fun to see the Right beat up on their own strawmans now.
Comment -
kd2133SBR Rookie
- 03-11-11
- 47
#136I guess you would rather have thousands of people lose there jobs rather than lose your right to collective bargin. Not to mention If we don't do something about libya we will have do something about it further down the road. Might as well do it now while we have the support of the people and Gaddafi's regime is falling apart.Comment -
losturmarblesSBR MVP
- 07-01-08
- 4604
#137
As far as I can tell on the War Powers Act, there are a few in this thread that that would apply to. (including yourself) ROFL on that one for a while.Comment -
losturmarblesSBR MVP
- 07-01-08
- 4604
#138I am sure there are many Islamic fundamentalists and anti-western fighters in this group but does it represent the majority or a relatively small minority? At this stage there is no way of knowing and the BBC/CNN coverage is doing little to shed any light on it.
Many Libyans Jihadists found their way to Iraq during the peak of that insurgency but that group were bought-off by Ghadaffi 2 or 3 years ago.
Obama's humanitarian mission to protect "civilians" is a complete farce. He's aiding a rebel force of jihadi terrorists, the same terrorists that were killing US troops in Iraq.Last edited by losturmarbles; 03-26-11, 01:42 PM.Comment -
losturmarblesSBR MVP
- 07-01-08
- 4604
#139The per capita numbers of fighters we learned about from the linked articles leave no doubt that the level of Islamic fundamentalism is the highest in this region. Considering that among "moderate" Arabs about 50% have various violent fundamentalist views, it is very simple to extrapolate the prevailing sentiments among the Libyan rebels.
Frankly, I am unsure what you are referring to. Gadhafi has been effectively oppressing militant Islamists in general and Al-Qaeda in particular being an anti-Al-Qaeda US ally in the region. He's been destroying them as they posed a threat to his rule. Before the rebellion, Al-Qaeda made assassinations attempts on him. Note, the US acts in this war as Al-Qaeda's ally. Al-Qaeda, as expected, prononced their support for the rebels and called for overthrowing Gadhafi. I see this as a new low of the US foreign policy. BTW, the previous low, in my opinion, was NOT Iraq but Kosovo.Comment -
losturmarblesSBR MVP
- 07-01-08
- 4604
#140
The president's use of the military comes from State of Emergency powers. We have been under a state of emergency for most of the past century. Bullshit circumvention of the Constitution by the Military-Industrial Complex.Comment
SBR Contests
Collapse
Top-Rated US Sportsbooks
Collapse
#1 BetMGM
4.8/5 BetMGM Bonus Code
#2 FanDuel
4.8/5 FanDuel Promo Code
#3 Caesars
4.8/5 Caesars Promo Code
#4 DraftKings
4.7/5 DraftKings Promo Code
#5 Fanatics
#6 bet365
4.7/5 bet365 Bonus Code
#7 Hard Rock
4.1/5 Hard Rock Bet Promo Code
#8 BetRivers
4.1/5 BetRivers Bonus Code