[Justin7]

US president has no real power. He's a puppet in the hands of the military-industrial complex.

Here's Obama before he had learned that:


Here's what he did as president:


Obama 100% betrayed the People of the US. But if he had stood up they would simply have assassinated him. So all he can be accused of is being a coward.

Dark 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.

[Mike Huntertz]

wars make money that is all you need to know

Only for a select few.....the others pay and die!
That is one of many reasons the USA is dying!

[Dark Horse]

Dark 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.

The first one? That's flattery. lol What I said is very much in line with anything else I've said here about politics. The basic underlying idea being that of globalists in charge, be it in the financial, industrial, or military arena.

I wasn't aware of the 60-day window you refer to. Do you have a link to the legality of that? That would basically mean any president could go to war and get approval or disapproval long after the fact, when it no longer matters.

I've said here in the past that the only two politicians, that I'm aware of, who have not sold out are Dennis Kucinich on the left, and Ron Paul on the right.

Here's their reaction:

Kucinich; http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/2...tacking-libya/

And Ron Paul on Youtube: http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul...-reaction.html

Also, it has every appearance that the uprising in Libya is by 'Al Qaeda', well-armed Muslim extremists who want to impose sharia law. Most people seem to have automatically assumed that this uprising was similar to Egypt, without looking at the nature of the rebellion. What we could have here is our military helping the 'feared terrorists' we seek protection from in the US with Homeland Security and the Patriot Act. Go figure. Does it fit? Not from a nationalist US perspective. But it makes perfect sense from a globalist perspective.

The argument used by Obama is ludicrous, by the way. A leader has lost the right to rule once he has attacked his own people? So the US government would just roll over if the People ever rose up against it? Yeah. Right.

(Here's a dark prediction. Not only will the globalists seize the world's oil fields, but, having done so, they will raise the price.)

[frostno98]

Brilliant move on Obama part, pulling a page out of Bill Clinton like when he bombed Molosevic into concession in Kosovo. I hope the President doesn't commit any US Troop in this, and let them Arab's country duke it out.

I'm all for the Air Support though, since we got the most advance Aerial assault in the world, going against a relatively primitive anti-air counter attack from Libya

[NrmlCurvSurfr]

This thread is exactly why I don't get my global news from SBR. Gambling defininitely...global news however

Lol @ degenerate gamblers interpreting political actions.

[Grind House]

When 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 many innocent people have America killed since '03 to now over there? USA is a bigger threat to world peace than any other country in the world. This whole government is shit and needs to be executed one by one.

[NYSportsGuy210]

Bush did what he thought was right based on the information he had. He had bi-partisan support and other countries ( Tony Blair) supported it as well and still does to this day. He said when you are in charge you don't want to take any chances with these crazies with these stakes especially in a frantic post 911 world.

Obama calls Bush a war monger... He used to say Bush started "two illegal wars", but then Obama went and kept one the same while vastly increasing the other one and starting another one. Not what his Obamabots wanted.

You can't be serious with an asassine statement like this can you? Bush totally gave the American public a big F U when he went after his "daddy's old enemy" in Iraq and used the 9/11 bombing as an excuse. He basically used the American people and the nation's tragic suffering as a whole for his own greedy and selfish causes. And everybody knows it....

Everyone knows also that he OUTRIGHT LIED about any WMD links between terrorists and Saddam Hussein....it was all just a cover up so he could go in and fight his "daddy's war".

Get a clue before you post your nonsense.

[jcubs55]

If Obama is a war monger then what the fuk is Bush???

A war monger

[icancount2one]

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE PROFIT
If Obama is a war monger then what the fuk is Bush???

A war monger

Actually I'd go with war criminal

[Dark Horse]

War puppet. Bush loved this stuff, Obama is going along with it. It is telling that neither went to Congress, but decided (by themselves, or instructed by those behind the scenes?!) to go to war. In doing so, they clearly acted against the Constitution. However, either nobody cares (not true), or nobody has the power to do something against it; once again, suggesting that the political process is just a show kept up for appearances, as well as, in this country, to 'divide and conquer' the people. Same old stuff, over and over, and continuously being confirmed by event after event.

Obama wasn't lying during his election campaign. He was full of hope, enthusiasm,and promises. People believed him because he was genuine. Look at him now. There's nothing left of his desire to set out in bold new directions. He's learned that he's a puppet.

[trumpdown]

War puppet. Bush loved this stuff, Obama is going along with it. It is telling that neither went to Congress, but decided (by themselves, or instructed by those behind the scenes?!) to go to war. In doing so, they clearly acted against the Constitution. However, either nobody cares (not true), or nobody has the power to do something against it; once again, suggesting that the political process is just a show kept up for appearances, as well as, in this country, to 'divide and conquer' the people. Same old stuff, over and over, and continuously being confirmed by event after event.

Obama wasn't lying during his election campaign. He was full of hope, enthusiasm,and promises. People believed him because he was genuine. Look at him now. There's nothing left of his desire to set out in bold new directions. He's learned that he's a puppet.

Agree they're all puppets. The corporate assassins rule the day. They rule the world! Money greed and power rolled into one.

[pavyracer]

War puppet. Bush loved this stuff, Obama is going along with it. It is telling that neither went to Congress, but decided (by themselves, or instructed by those behind the scenes?!) to go to war. In doing so, they clearly acted against the Constitution. However, either nobody cares (not true), or nobody has the power to do something against it; once again, suggesting that the political process is just a show kept up for appearances, as well as, in this country, to 'divide and conquer' the people. Same old stuff, over and over, and continuously being confirmed by event after event.

Obama wasn't lying during his election campaign. He was full of hope, enthusiasm,and promises. People believed him because he was genuine. Look at him now. There's nothing left of his desire to set out in bold new directions. He's learned that he's a puppet.

I don't think there was UN when the US constitution was drafted. Since the US is a permanent member of the UN Security Council once the UN votes on a Resolution authorizing use of force the President of the US has the power to use the military without actual declaring war on a country with Congress approval.

[FourLengthsClear]

There are many oppressive regimes in the world but the situation and the situation in Libya had descended into what was effectively civil war.

I am sure that most of us don't put a great deal of stock into the United Nations but the bottom line is that resolution 1973 is what seperates this from Iraq as far as international law and opinion is concerned.

To intervene in Libya but not in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Bahrain etc etc is, of course, hypocritical but foreign policy has always been that way.

Is it the right thing to do? I have mixed feelings, I am not really sure what these rebels stand for. I was (and still am) 100% sure that Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

[Hotdiggity11]

US president has no real power. He's a puppet in the hands of the military-industrial complex.

Here's Obama before he had learned that:


Here's what he did as president:


Obama 100% betrayed the People of the US. But if he had stood up they would simply have assassinated him. So all he can be accused of is being a coward.

UN Resolutions aren't unilateral. In fact, they are the exact opposite of unilateral.

[ChileCheese]

This post is to my American Friends. I, like most of the younger guys on here, have grown up in a world where the act of War is something either studied in class or identified through news bites. You really do not have to worry about fighting in one, unless of course you willingly sign up for duty. And as such, the reality of what is war and the rawness off it is brushed off as something a movie could provide you. But then I read this article the other day, and it was quite disturbing. And after digesting the piece, I cant fathom how people (mainly Americans) are willing to risk their lives for the small group of elites who benefit. That being said. take 5 minutes to read the link, as I think its a very strong piece.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/...iraq_20110321/

[Hotdiggity11]

BTW, 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.

[19th Hole]

When 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?

We needed Saddam to keep Iran at bay and
W disrupted the equation for his own personal
reasons. Didn't hurt Darth Vadar's Blackwater income either.


Lybia is a horse of a different color.
Gadaffi can burn in hell....after the Lockabee murders....
we should spare no firepower.

[FourLengthsClear]

Bush did what he thought was right based on the information he had. He had bi-partisan support and other countries ( Tony Blair) supported it as well and still does to this day. He said when you are in charge you don't want to take any chances with these crazies with these stakes especially in a frantic post 911 world.

Obama calls Bush a war monger... He used to say Bush started "two illegal wars", but then Obama went and kept one the same while vastly increasing the other one and starting another one. Not what his Obamabots wanted.

Do you really (deep down) beleive that? It has transpired that much of that "information" was embellished (or outright fabricated) for the purposes on persuading the US population that invasion was the right thing to do.

[19th Hole]

There are many oppressive regimes in the world but the situation and the situation in Libya had descended into what was effectively civil war.

I am sure that most of us don't put a great deal of stock into the United Nations but the bottom line is that resolution 1973 is what seperates this from Iraq as far as international law and opinion is concerned.

To intervene in Libya but not in North Korea, Zimbabwe, Bahrain etc etc is, of course, hypocritical but foreign policy has always been that way.

Is it the right thing to do? I have mixed feelings, I am not really sure what these rebels stand for. I was (and still am) 100% sure that Iraq was the wrong thing to do.

Thanks for this post.

[zam77]

Do you really (deep down) beleive that? It has transpired that much of that "information" was embellished (or outright fabricated) for the purposes on persuading the US population that invasion was the right thing to do.

Embellished is the key word... but not just in the Iraq war. ALL OF THEM!

It's sad and commical to me at the same time to think US citizens believed underqualified Obama's rhetoric to get into office. Embellishing is what they do to get in and what they do when they are in. It's stupid to think that Bush's embellishing is any different than Obama's because unless you are an involved polictician with inside information, there is no way to really know who is telling the truth.

Fellow Americans... open your eyes in 2012 and elect the person with more experience at being a politician, not the one who tells you more of what you want to hear because it's all BS anyway. Absolutely baffling that the "voted in" President of the US was Obama over McCain.

[NYSportsGuy210]

Iraq was clearly the wrong thing to do. Not only do we look like empirical a-holes because of it but look how much money we WASTE in funding it every year that could go to help create jobs, expand education and create public health care.

[nyed1010]

Remember when he said he would have all the troops out of the middle east within 6 months of his term? I can't believe some of you idiots actually voted for this lying pri<k.

[philswin]

This war should be voted on by Congress, only when we have a clear mission. Those that vote for it should be accountable for what happens and work to make the mission succesful, unlike Iraq which was voted on and past almost unanamiously in Congress and as soon as it didnt go the way they wanted they started making excuses for their votes like John Edwards who quickly became an anti-war activist, he blamed his vote on his wifes cancer saying he was distracted at the time and didnt study it enough.

[philswin]

When an arab is killed by a brutal dictator putting down a rebellion (like dictators have for millenia) it's "killing your own people". When we do it it's "collateral damage".

C-Gold for once I almost entirely agree with you. Your analogy about a ref fixing a game is very accurate when it comes to situations like Clinton's actions in Haiti and Bosnia and Obama in Libya. Democrat wars are normally short and surgical. Like you've said though, our given reasons are BS, but not as BS as invading the country 10 years after the fact.

Someone like G.W. or McCain would see this as an opportunity for a permanent presence in Libya and we'd probably be in the game instead of just reffing it. As usual, Obama is far, far worse than the ideal, but still better than his Republican counterparts. However, being better than Satan isn't actually good.

Like Vietnam and Korea?

[rsnnh12]

.... that mission was accomplished...

From Bush's speech that day-
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous"
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done."

Mission accomplished=/=war over

[rsnnh12]

Do you really (deep down) beleive that? It has transpired that much of that "information" was embellished (or outright fabricated) for the purposes on persuading the US population that invasion was the right thing to do.

I believe Bush (as well as everyone else in Congress and other countries leaders) thought all of the intel was accurate. They had no reason to think otherwise, since Saddam was acting like he did have WMDs. If he had allowed uninhibited access for inspectors, the US wouldn't have invaded.

[pavyracer]

I believe Bush (as well as everyone else in Congress and other countries leaders) thought all of the intel was accurate. They had no reason to think otherwise, since Saddam was acting like he did have WMDs. If he had allowed uninhibited access for inspectors, the US wouldn't have invaded.

Saddam wasn't acting like he had WMDs. CIA and Fox News made you think that he was acting like he had WMDs by fabricating reports and posting propaganda over TV 24/7. There is an old saying that if you tell a lie 1000 times it becomes the truth.

[philswin]

Sadaam violated the terms of the first Iraq war ending for years, including not allowing weapons inspectors in his country. This should have been used for justification for going to war not WMD. But as stated before a clear strategy, cost, timeline needs to be communicated to Congress before we ever commit to a war in which our citizens are not in imminent danger. This needs to be discussed, challenged and voted on before ever commiting troops.

[leon]

All the world went to war only for the petroleum.They do not care about democracy,justify and humam rights.

[rsnnh12]

Saddam wasn't acting like he had WMDs. CIA and Fox News made you think that he was acting like he had WMDs by fabricating reports and posting propaganda over TV 24/7. There is an old saying that if you tell a lie 1000 times it becomes the truth.

Oh, right, big bad Fox News

"In April 1991 Iraq provided its first of what would be several declarations of its chemical weapons programs. [56] Subsequent declarations submitted by Iraq in June 1992 , March 1995, June 1996 came only after pressure from UNSCOM. [56] In February 1998 , UNSCOM unanimously determined that after seven years of attempts to establish the extent of Iraq’s chemical weapons programs, that Iraq had still not given the Commission sufficient information for them to conclude that Iraq had undertaken all the disarmament steps required by the UNSC resolutions concerning chemical weapons"

Good read, if you're interested... the "Between Persian Gulf Wars" section
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_...ss_destruction

If Saddam was giving inspectors the run-around about his weapons stockpiles and research for 7 years with inspectors in the country, doesn't it stand to reason that when they left for 4 years, he wouldn't really destroy the weapons like he claimed? He claimed he was clean for 7 years, until weapons/chemicals/research was discovered. Then he would lie and say that's all he had, until more was found, etc etc etc...

Does he sound like a trustworthy guy?

[jnickell100]

funny

i was just thinking the yesterday, he was so anti-war and now doing the same stuff the other guys done

where is the "change"

Ya I was thinking the same thing. Im really disappointed with Obama right now, I did not think we'd attack like this and its an all to familiar place were in now.

[King Mayan]

BTW, 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.

Obama's side on anything= tea baggers running to the other side.....

[19th Hole]

.... that mission was accomplished...

From Bush's speech that day-
"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous"
"The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done."

Mission accomplished=/=war over

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
Thanks for "The Laff Of The Day"!!

[itchypickle]

I think it's funny that anyone (Dark Horse) can have credibility on any military intervention policy and have never heard of the War Powers Act It's sort of akin to knowing the difference between a field goal and a PAT in football trivia.

[rsnnh12]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
Thanks for "The Laff Of The Day"!!

Problem?