"Gadhafi vows 'long war' after US allies strike"

[OldMercsRule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya

Notice how the adorin' Hard Left so called "main stream media" characterizes this bumbelin' act of war by our very own fruit fly Chicago thug..... :laugh2:

He coulda let Gadhafi know many weeks ago that he didn't like bullies, butt: he was focusin' on school kids that call homosexuals "gay".... :laugh2:

Jus' imagine that George W Bush had bumbled his way into war while hangin' out with his lovely wife in Rio... what would the MSM have said then????? :laugh2:

Hmmmmmmmm??????? :laugh2:

"TRIPOLI, Libya – A defiant Moammar Gadhafi vowed a "long war" after the U.S. and European militaries blasted his forces with airstrikes and over 100 cruise missiles, hitting air defenses and at least two major air bases early Sunday, shaking the Libyan capital with explosions and anti-aircraft fire"

No matter how they media spins this chit: FRANCE IS IN CHARGE! N' Obamaprompter is jus' votin' "present"..... :laugh2:

[logroller]

was this UN sanctioned??? :coffee:

[OldMercsRule]

was this UN sanctioned??? :coffee:

Why..............SURE it was.......... :laugh2:

Ya think that makes a difference in the way the so called "main stream media" treats their Obamaprompter hero as he hangs out with Michelle in South America livin' large n' all that stuff.........?

I guess maybe ya think that the UN didn't approve of the second Iraq war or some such? (Or maybe yer bein' sarcastic as I am)... if so: :thumb:

N' it was "sanctioned" by the Mayor of the windy city toooooooooo......

Remember: "never let a crisis go ta waste"...... even if hidin' on the back bench creates the opportunity fer the French ta lead the world...... :laugh2: :laugh2:

















































































































































The missiles were the vote of "present" from Rio!

[OldMercsRule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_libya_military

Ya think the enemy listens to the fruit fly in chief when he CLEARLY STATES LIMITS OR WITHDRAWAL DEADLINES IN ADVANCE WHEN HE IS WAGIN' WAR? :laugh2: :laugh2:

"President Barack Obama, on an official visit to Brazil, held a conference call Sunday with top national security officials, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Army Gen. Carter Ham, who as head of U.S. Africa Command is in charge of the Libya military operation. Ham's headquarters are in Stuttgart, Germany"

N' those dim wit voters sure do luv that mean reverb in the Obamaprompter's voice eh? :laugh2: :laugh2:

[OldMercsRule]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110320/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_obama_latin_america_29

"Meanwhile, seemingly a world away U.S. warplanes launched a coordinated assault against Moammar Gadhafi's defenses a day after the president authorized the military action to enforce an internationally authorized no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians. The president had been on a conference call with his top advisers earlier Sunday to get briefed on the effort as juggled his touristing and economic outreach in Latin America with the unceasing demands of being commander-in-chief"

Isn't he kool calm n' collected? :laugh2:

Fightin' a war while havin' fun in Rio!!!! :laugh2:

[logroller]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110320/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_obama_latin_america_29

"Meanwhile, seemingly a world away U.S. warplanes launched a coordinated assault against Moammar Gadhafi's defenses a day after the president authorized the military action to enforce an internationally authorized no-fly zone to protect Libyan civilians. The president had been on a conference call with his top advisers earlier Sunday to get briefed on the effort as juggled his touristing and economic outreach in Latin America with the unceasing demands of being commander-in-chief"

Isn't he kool calm n' collected? :laugh2:

Fightin' a war while havin' fun in Rio!!!! :laugh2:

Think the pres is all world of warcraft; with headphones on and controller in hand. Already has the cheat codes for un resolution and unlimited weaponry (less boots on the ground)
, UN resolutions have become a joke.:cheers2:

The word on the street is the attacks were necessary to enforce the no-fly zone; make it safe to fly drones by destroying antiaircraft stuff, missiles, radar, communications etc etc. Makes sense I guess, but I'm no strategist-- it tastes like plain old koolaid.:laugh:

[namvet]

Osama wants a purple heart to prove he's American

[OldMercsRule]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/arab-league-condemns-broad-bombing-campaign-in-libya/2011/03/20/AB1pSg1_story.html?hpid=z3

"CAIRO—The Arab League secretary general, Amr Moussa, deplored the broad scope of the U.S.-European bombing campaign in Libya and said Sunday that he would call a league meeting to reconsider Arab approval of the Western military intervention."

Hmmmmm..... startin' a war while partyin' in Rio should be sooooooooo easy....... :laugh2: :laugh2:

[OldMercsRule]

My ooooooooooooo MY...........


"A hard-core group of liberal House Democrats is questioning the constitutionality of U.S. missile strikes against Libya, with one lawmaker raising the prospect of impeachment during a Democratic Caucus conference call on Saturday.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Donna Edwards (Md.), Mike Capuano (Mass.), Dennis Kucinich (Ohio), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Rob Andrews (N.J.), Sheila Jackson Lee (Texas), Barbara Lee (Calif.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.) “all strongly raised objections to the constitutionality of the president’s actions” during that call, said two Democratic lawmakers who took part"


IMPEACHMENT?

Say it ain't soooooooo......

Where is Baghdad Jim McDermott when ya need him.... :laugh2: :laugh2:


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html#ixzz1HBK0QDtT

[Gaffer]

Something tells me the arabs aren't going to be lending support as promised. Why do I get the feeling that this is going to be twisted into a west invasion of an arab country thing? And used for propaganda against the west.

[trobinett]

No shit, this is such a cluster fuck, who would of thunk it?

My sympathies to those that have served, like myself, a Nam era vet, this whole deal is going in the dumper.

Our political leaders should be proud of themselves.:lame2:

[OldMercsRule]

Something tells me the arabs aren't going to be lending support as promised. Why do I get the feeling that this is going to be twisted into a west invasion of an arab country thing? And used for propaganda against the west.

The good Col is already doin' jus' that.....

Kinda hard ta fight n' win a war while partyin' in Rio eh? :laugh2: :laugh2:

[logroller]

The good Col is already doin' jus' that.....

Kinda hard ta fight n' win a war while partyin' in Rio eh? :laugh2: :laugh2:

This repetition of partying in rio is reminiscent of the attacks bush had after 9/11, reading a story to kids and what not. I seriously doubt he's there on a pleasure trip with no political activities. What is of note is he's on this tour of S.America to spread understanding for peace and cooperation. Extremely bad timing or just plain stupid, you be the judge?


Unfortunately, Mr. Obama discredited his trip even before it began by peddling it as a trade mission to create jobs and boost the U.S. economy. With those goals in mind, he would have been better off staying home and lobbying Congress to drop the 54 cents per gallon tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol, and to end all U.S. subsidies on cotton, which have been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization in a case brought by Brazil. Or he could have sent the Colombia and Panama free trade agreements to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where they would be easily ratified. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576208691881359896.html

[OldMercsRule]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-air-strikes-waning-arab-support

"Arab support for the US-led war in Libya showed signs of fraying today in reaction to the sheer destructive power of the initial attack, claims of civilian deaths and a warning by Muammar Gaddafi to prepare for "a long war"."

Hmmmmmmm....... not easy ta run things from Rio, (it is better ta vote present from a State Senate seat) n' then criticize others who take action. :laugh2: :laugh2:

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule
The good Col is already doin' jus' that.....

Kinda hard ta fight n' win a war while partyin' in Rio eh?


This repetition of partying in rio is reminiscent of the attacks bush had after 9/11, reading a story to kids and what not.

SARCASM ON: OH????? REALLY? Did the good Col send some planes into the Pentagon n' some huge skyscrapers in our largest city? SARCASM OFF :laugh2: :laugh2:

Don't see any cornparison: Logroller. NONE.


I seriously doubt he's there on a pleasure trip with no political activities.

OH REALLY? "Political activities" yer sayin' while attacking a soverign country that he could have warned with an Aircraft Carrier, (that are all still days away), back when the good Col's support would have scurried away like rats when the light is turned on? That is the problem with this fruit fly that has never had a job running or managing anything (accept the "Annenberg Challange", [set up by his good bud: Billy "boom" Ayers], that was an abject failure). War is serious bidness, n' takes a great deal of planning n' thought, (Obamaprompter clearly hasn't done much of that). The French are leading the way and Hillary is very clearly not happy with this nit wit POTUS. She would have been MUCH better as POTUS, (takin' the ol' 3:00 AM phone call).
:laugh2: :laugh2:


What is of note is he's on this tour of S.America to spread understanding for peace and cooperation.

Yeah this fruit fly Chicago thug is real smart...... I wonder if he can tie his shoes? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:


Extremely bad timing or just plain stupid, you be the judge?

I would characterize it as: incompetent in the EXTREME! GRRRRRRRRRRR.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704608504576208691881359896.html

[Kathianne]

Obama is about to learn just how hard it is to get others to carry the water.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenvoy/20110321/ts_yblog_theenvoy/international-alliance-divided-over-libya-command


International alliance divided over Libya command
By Laura Rozen laura Rozen Mon Mar 21, 5:15 pm ET

President Barack Obama, speaking in Santiago, Chile on Monday, defended his decision to order U.S. strikes against Libyan military targets, and insisted that the mission is clear.

And like a parade of Pentagon officials the past few days, Obama insisted that the United States' lead military role will be turned over—"in days, not weeks"—to an international command of which the United States will be just one part.

The only problem: None of the countries in the international coalition can yet agree on to whom or how the United States should hand off responsibilities.

The sense of urgency among White House officials to resolve the command dispute is profound: with each hour the U.S. remains in charge of yet another Middle East military intervention, Congress steps up criticism that Obama went to war in Libya without first getting its blessing, nor defining precisely what the end-game will be. (On Monday, Obama sent Congress official notification that he had ordered the U.S. military two days earlier to commence operations "to prevent humanitarian catastrophe" in Libya and support the international coalition implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973.)

Below, an explainer on the military mission in Libya, the dispute over who should command it after its initial phase, and whether the military is concerned about mission creep...

With the Arab League, Turkey, and Germany doing what they all are doing, don't look for any other country to take this off of his hands.

[fj1200]

So now we care about UN resolutions? :facepalm:

So let me get this straight, we're there for "humanitarian blah, blah, blah..." which gives the rebels confidence to further their attacks. If they then get riddled with bullets by Qadaffi is OK to do that?

So we now get the OK to attack another country with hardly any idea of what the end-game exit strategy is? I'm trying to recall who was upset about this 8 years ago. :confused:


Please check all that apply.

[OldMercsRule]

So now we care about UN resolutions? :facepalm:

As one component of the total picture. This fruit fly didn't do much planing at all, the French snookered him while he was playin' in Rio.


So let me get this straight, we're there for "humanitarian blah, blah, blah..." which gives the rebels confidence to further their attacks. If they then get riddled with bullets by Qadaffi is OK to do that?

Hard ta tell much with a policy designed on the fly from the back bench in Rio.....


So we now get the OK to attack another country with hardly any idea of what the end-game exit strategy is?

I guess ya think the American people actually approved of this fruit fly's UNCORNSTITUTIONAL HEALTH PLAN THEN? Are ya payin' attention? This feller does what he wants when he wants with very little planning or pondering cornsequences. A clear sign of inexperience.....After all: this is his first REAL JOB!!! :laugh2: :laugh2:


I'm trying to recall who was upset about this 8 years ago. :confused:

There is ZERO cornparison to Iraq or Afghanistan under George W Bush.


Please check all that apply.

Hmmmmmmmm........

[logroller]

SARCASM ON: OH????? REALLY? Did the good Col send some planes into the Pentagon n' some huge skyscrapers in our largest city? SARCASM OFF :laugh2: :laugh2:

Don't see any cornparison: Logroller. NONE.
[QUOTE=OldMercsRule;466091]

Perhaps you missed my point, those only add more credence to what i meant; the critique by many was regarding GW's inaction or failure to address the issue of the terror attacks in a timely fashion. That's why I mentioned the book reading to kids part.

So far as planes and and terror attacks, neither did Saddam, but we sure have spilled plenty of American blood in Iraq, not to mention resources and $-- and I think most Iraqis are worse off than before. Not to infer this as justification for our actions in Libya; why make the same mistake twice? Isn't there a saying about doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result. Madness I tell you, its madness.



OH REALLY? "Political activities" yer sayin' while attacking a soverign country that he could have warned with an Aircraft Carrier, (that are all still days away), back when the good Col's support would have scurried away like rats when the light is turned on? That is the problem with this fruit fly that has never had a job running or managing anything (accept the "Annenberg Challange", [set up by his good bud: Billy "boom" Ayers], that was an abject failure). War is serious bidness, n' takes a great deal of planning n' thought, (Obamaprompter clearly hasn't done much of that). The French are leading the way and Hillary is very clearly not happy with this nit wit POTUS. She would have been MUCH better as POTUS, (takin' the ol' 3:00 AM phone call).
:laugh2: :laugh2:

Well of course she's not happy, she's already played second fiddle once in her life-- once again, no cigar! (or stained dress):wink2:




Yeah this fruit fly Chicago thug is real smart...... I wonder if he can tie his shoes? :laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:
He uses velcro. What are you, like 80-- shoelaces are so dated.:laugh:



I would characterize it as: incompetent in the EXTREME! GRRRRRRRRRRR.

no arguments there:clap:

[OldMercsRule]

SARCASM ON: OH????? REALLY? Did the good Col send some planes into the Pentagon n' some huge skyscrapers in our largest city? SARCASM OFF :laugh2: :laugh2:

Don't see any cornparison: Logroller. NONE.


Perhaps you missed my point, those only add more credence to what i meant; the critique by many was regarding GW's inaction or failure to address the issue of the terror attacks in a timely fashion. That's why I mentioned the book reading to kids part.

Hmmmmmm......... 9-11 was not like Pearl Harbor with a return address.

We crushed the Taliban, (where OBL was hangin' out).

Soooooooooo yer right......... I missed yer point. Please make a coherent one.

Remember: only one functional brain cell so connect those dots like ya would fer a kindergartner with a D average. :happy0203: :happy0203:


So far as planes and and terror attacks, neither did Saddam, but we sure have spilled plenty of American blood in Iraq, not to mention resources and $-- and I think most Iraqis are worse off than before.

Hmmmmmmm..... so ya don't think much of FREEDOM then?

Ya think people like their leaders ta use wood chippers, electric drills, n' forth story flyin' lessons n' such?

Hmmmmmm............ :laugh2:


Not to infer this as justification for our actions in Libya; why make the same mistake twice?

ZERO similarity. Non sequitur.

Does yer brain werk OK?


Isn't there a saying about doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result. Madness I tell you, its madness.

There maybe "a saying"......

N' what does such a sayin' have ta do with the price of beans in Boston?


Originally Posted by Murky

OH REALLY? "Political activities" yer sayin' while attacking a soverign country that he could have warned with an Aircraft Carrier, (that are all still days away), back when the good Col's support would have scurried away like rats when the light is turned on? That is the problem with this fruit fly that has never had a job running or managing anything (accept the "Annenberg Challange", [set up by his good bud: Billy "boom" Ayers], that was an abject failure). War is serious bidness, n' takes a great deal of planning n' thought, (Obamaprompter clearly hasn't done much of that). The French are leading the way and Hillary is very clearly not happy with this nit wit POTUS. She would have been MUCH better as POTUS, (takin' the ol' 3:00 AM phone call). :laugh2: :laugh2:


Well of course she's not happy, she's already played second fiddle once in her life-- once again, no cigar! (or stained dress):wink2:

My point was Hillary or almost any capable adult with some experince could do a superior job to what Obamaprompter is now doin'.

Ya have issues with readin' comprehension?


Originally Posted by Murky
Yeah this fruit fly Chicago thug is real smart...... I wonder if he can tie his shoes?


He uses velcro. What are you, like 80-- shoelaces are so dated.:laugh:

Hmmmmmm.... are you a teen aged girl or some such?


Originally Posted by Murky
I would characterize it as: incompetent in the EXTREME! GRRRRRRRRRRR



no arguments there:clap:

Well....... I guess we agree on one thing.

[OldMercsRule]

First POTUS in US history that runs the place from the back bench!!!! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4e7f742-54b6-11e0-b1ed-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1HOUP3om6


"Barack Obama, US president, sought on Tuesday to break an impasse that has created confusion over command of the attack on Libya.

Mr Obama, under domestic political pressure to hand over the current US command, phoned David Cameron, the British prime minister, and Nicolas Sarkozy, French president, from Air Force One during his trip to South America."

[logroller]

Hmmmmmm......... 9-11 was not like Pearl Harbor with a return address.

We crushed the Taliban, (where OBL was hangin' out).

Soooooooooo yer right......... I missed yer point. Please make a coherent one.

Remember: only one functional brain cell so connect those dots like ya would fer a kindergartner with a D average. :happy0203: :happy0203:

Hmmmmmmm..... so ya don't think much of FREEDOM then?

Ya think people like their leaders ta use wood chippers, electric drills, n' forth story flyin' lessons n' such?

Hmmmmmm............ :laugh2:



ZERO similarity. Non sequitur.

Does yer brain werk OK?



There maybe "a saying"......

N' what does such a sayin' have ta do with the price of beans in Boston?

My point was Hillary or almost any capable adult with some experince could do a superior job to what Obamaprompter is now doin'.

Ya have issues with readin' comprehension?

Hmmmmmm.... are you a teen aged girl or some such?


Save it blue --- Thems just jokes!!! If you need a coloring book or age related material for those under 10, you'd best talk with my wife, she teaches K-1. I prefer a higher level conversation with those who are aware of previous critiques done my media. I can't elaborate any further without this general understanding; like, fur sure!

Freedom huh? Sounds noble enough a venture, but whose exactly, freedom of Iraqis to attack an occupational force or freedom of US govt contracted business to capitalize on foreign resources. Freedom is a double edged sword; there are those who are glad to enjoy the freedoms which exist in Iraq; maybe ask the families of the thousands of dead American GIs what they think of these freedoms? Or the tens of thousands more who come home with PTSD suffering from nightmares and an overwhelming hatred of those they "freed". The only reason we're in these countries is because the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution preclude govt from doing most of what we're doing abroad; not that they haven't passed things like the PatriotAct to try; but we attack other countries to preserve our freedoms, not theirs!

[OldMercsRule]

Save it blue --- Thems just jokes!!! If you need a coloring book or age related material for those under 10, you'd best talk with my wife, she teaches K-1.

Hmmmmmm.... n' here I thought ya said I sounded like I was North of 80, now I'm South of 10?


Sheeesh make up yer mind will ya? :happy0203:


I prefer a higher level conversation with those who are aware of previous critiques done my media.

Yer media? Are you smokkin' somthin' young girls shouldn't smoke? :happy0203:


I can't elaborate any further without this general understanding; like, fur sure!

Hmmmmmmm can't make any sense in yer posts, eh? :laugh2:

N now yer sayin' I have ta read some Commie comic books ta understand the silly chit ya type? Say it ain't soooooooooo......

N' now yer makin' fun of me single functional brain cell.............. :happy0203:


Freedom huh?

Yuppers one of those corncepts some people can't seem ta understand.

Didn't ya say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam?

Or were ya jus' cornfused...... ? :laugh2:


Originally Posted by logroller
So far as planes and and terror attacks, neither did Saddam, but we sure have spilled plenty of American blood in Iraq, not to mention resources and $-- and I think most Iraqis are worse off than before.

Silly me..... eh?


Sounds noble enough a venture, but whose exactly, freedom of Iraqis to attack an occupational force or freedom of US govt contracted business to capitalize on foreign resources. Freedom is a double edged sword;

Yuppers Freedom is a good thing butt: it does have cornsequences, n' it is NEVER FREE.


there are those who are glad to enjoy the freedoms which exist in Iraq; maybe ask the families of the thousands of dead American GIs what they think of these freedoms?

Most Americans value Freedom: Logroller. N' that's even with all those unknowns where ya seem ta stress the potential negatives.

Why knash yer teeth n' whine n' snivel so much.....? Get some fresh undies n' enjoy the comfort..... :happy0203:


Or the tens of thousands more who come home with PTSD suffering from nightmares and an overwhelming hatred of those they "freed".

Me thinks yer underestimatin' our wonderful Vets. Why such a dark view?


The only reason we're in these countries is because the freedoms guaranteed by our constitution preclude govt from doing most of what we're doing abroad;

Young girls shouldn't smoke whacky tabaceeeeeee: Logroller!

BTW: Yer nearly incoherent.


not that they haven't passed things like the PatriotAct to try; but we attack other countries to preserve our freedoms, not theirs!

Ya finaly stumbled upon something, (in a round about n' muddled way).

We assert and protect our interests ta preserve our freedoms.

Remember: FREEDOM IS NEVER FREE. (N' it is one of the most precious of things to most people).

Hope yer head clears up so ya can start makin' some sense..... :happy0203:

[logroller]

Is blue font meant to indicate idiocy?

If I seem dark about veterans' experience, consider my own. I cant count how many times I went to friend's house because if no one was there(including his wife) that could talk him down, he'd be in a mental ward? And the way I understand it, he's not the only one too crazy to serve, too crazy to be civilian. It's easy to talk about all the expenses of freedom when you don't see, first hand, the devastating effects of war. Just saying "freedom isn't free"-- fuckin weak. Freedom is bought and paid for with sacrifice, this I understand, but how does going into a foreign country protect our freedom-- seriously, how's that work? What do iraq or libya have do with our freedoms? Even were I to accept the whole notion of some foreign dictatorship presenting some threat to our freedom, the list of oppressive regimes is a long one; are we to go into all them, you know, for our freedom? OK, I'll bite-- you go first.

[OldMercsRule]

Is blue font meant to indicate idiocy?

Do ya think Einstein had only one functional brain cell? I ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer if that is what yer gettin' at.


If I seem dark about veterans' experience, consider my own. I cant count how many times I went to friend's house because if no one was there(including his wife) that could talk him down, he'd be in a mental ward? And the way I understand it, he's not the only one too crazy to serve, too crazy to be civilian. It's easy to talk about all the expenses of freedom when you don't see, first hand, the devastating effects of war. Just saying "freedom isn't free"-- fuckin weak.

I get it, ya don't like some of what I post. WTF? Sorry about yer Vet friend, War sucks I agree.

You are one negative person.


Freedom is bought and paid for with sacrifice, this I understand, but how does going into a foreign country protect our freedom-- seriously, how's that work? What do iraq or libya have do with our freedoms?

Ever heard of a fungible energy commodity: Oil? That powers Freedom: Bub. It is in America's direct National Interest ta have access fer America and the world ME Oil.

Is that hard ta understand?

Purdy simple ain't it?


Even were I to accept the whole notion of some foreign dictatorship presenting some threat to our freedom, the list of oppressive regimes is a long one; are we to go into all them, you know, for our freedom? OK, I'll bite-- you go first.

Iraq? Yes. Saddam almost brought down the WTC in 1993. Very clearly had the oil income, n' military, (Soviet Junk equiped), to crush Saudia Arabia and all the Gulf states. N' Saddam always attacked his neighbors.

Libya: No. He had not caused trouble since Saddam was fished outa a rabbit hole. Let the French n' Brits do it on their own.

Me overpriced $02. JR

[Thunderknuckles]

Is blue font meant to indicate idiocy?
switch(color){
case #0000FF:
read next;
break;
default:
read;
}

[revelarts]

Sarcasm ON

"Gadhafi vows 'long war' after US allies strike"
You mean Ghadaffi is not going to attacks for our freedoms?!
He's going to attack us becuase we attacked him 1st??
whhyyy he's evil and Funny looking too.
Why didn't the Illegal assinati... I mean Air strike for freedom get him.
Sarcasm Off

ANd Merc looks like the thing you mentioned about the oil is coming to the surface with Libya too.

It looks like Western europe _ENGLAND AND FRANCE- get a lot of it from Lybia. My My .
interesting to see you say you thought the Iraq war was largely I about Oil, I wonder why Bush and others on the right were never so frank.

But you do know there's plenty of oil in the USA too. so seems there's more to it that that even.

I'm with log
these stinking wars aren't about freedom

And If we'd spent the amount of money we spent on the wars on perfecting 2 or 3 alternatives we be free and clear of the ME, South America, Africa and Canada.

[logroller]

Hey Merc, I don't think you're as dumb as you would lead one to believe. I actually agree on the oil thing; but I don't see that as justification any more then Saddam was justified in invading Kuwait. Besides that, I just don't like being misled, the POTUS in 2003 talked about WMD and freedom from oppression and getting the "bad guys": that was the pitch to congress and the public and we bought it. When in reality it was resources, oil in this case, and that's fine, but tell me that from the beginning. Now we're getting involved in Libya for the same reason, less wmd, and they have the audacity to sing the same song of freedom; sorry guys, not this time; fool me once...

Cheers merc, I'll try to be more positive.:beer:

[OldMercsRule]

Sarcasm ON

"Gadhafi vows 'long war' after US allies strike"
You mean Ghadaffi is not going to attacks for our freedoms?!

Whatcha tryin' ta say Rev?

Don't ya remember the bombing in Germany and the 747 that went down in Scotland due to a bomb dispatched by Gadhafi?


He's going to attack us becuase we attacked him 1st??

See above :lol: ......... You been smokin' somethin' strong Rev?


whhyyy he's evil and Funny looking too.
Why didn't the Illegal assinati... I mean Air strike for freedom get him.
Sarcasm Off

They missed butt: obviously skeeeeeeeered the poop outa him. Ya didn't like it when Ronald the Great did that: Rev?


ANd Merc looks like the thing you mentioned about the oil is coming to the surface with Libya too.

Cumin' to the surface yer sayin'? Oil has to be brought to the surface ta be used: Rev...... :laugh2:


It looks like Western europe _ENGLAND AND FRANCE- get a lot of it from Lybia. My My .

N' ya got some sorta profound point I missed here, eh: Rev?


interesting to see you say you thought the Iraq war was largely I about Oil, I wonder why Bush and others on the right were never so frank.

I thought they were quite "frank" about a whole laundry list of corncerns that elevated Iraq to the top of our list. I guess you were nappin' eh?

America generally goes ta war over American Interests: Rev, (free access of oil is one of those interests). Somethin' wrong with yer brain?


But you do know there's plenty of oil in the USA too. so seems there's more to it that that even.

OH........... ya got some sorta sneeeeeeeky angle we haven't ever pondered before: Rev?


I'm with log
these stinking wars aren't about freedom

Oh..... n' what pray tell are they about: Rev?


And If we'd spent the amount of money we spent on the wars on perfecting 2 or 3 alternatives we be free and clear of the ME, South America, Africa and Canada.

Yer cracked Rev. :laugh2: :laugh2:

Those "alternatives" are many many moons in the future.

[OldMercsRule]

Hey Merc, I don't think you're as dumb as you would lead one to believe.

Hmmmmmmmm........ n' jus' how smart could a feller be with only one functional brain cell? :happy0203:


I actually agree on the oil thing; but I don't see that as justification any more then Saddam was justified in invading Kuwait. Besides that, I just don't like being misled, the POTUS in 2003 talked about WMD and freedom from oppression and getting the "bad guys": that was the pitch to congress and the public and we bought it.

Horse poop!

Jus' because you were nappin' doesn't mean there wasn't a long laundry list of issues about Iraq/Saddam that George W Bush put before the Congress and the UN.

The Congress LAWFULLY authorized the actions PRIOR TA GEORGE W BUSH pullin' the trigger, n' it's time ya got over it. It is how we do things in America.

Hit the books since ya didn't pay attention back then.


When in reality it was resources, oil in this case, and that's fine, but tell me that from the beginning.

It was about AMERICAN INTERESTS, (oil is one of many): Einstein! :laugh2: :laugh2:


Now we're getting involved in Libya for the same reason, less wmd, and they have the audacity to sing the same song of freedom; sorry guys, not this time; fool me once...

Wrong.

We are envolved in Libya because we have an inexperienced Liberal/Termite fruit fly back bencher from Chicago runnin' the place n' he doesn't obey the Cornstitution like George W Bush did.

He may or may not have gotten support from Congress, butt: that's not how this Chicago thug does bidness IS IT? GRRRRRRRRRRRR


Cheers merc, I'll try to be more positive.:beer:

Thats GREAT news Logroller!!! Yip YIP YAHOO!!! :thumb: :thumb:

[LuvRPgrl]

Sarcasm ON

"Gadhafi vows 'long war' after US allies strike"
You mean Ghadaffi is not going to attacks for our freedoms?!
He's going to attack us becuase we attacked him 1st??
whhyyy he's evil and Funny looking too.
Why didn't the Illegal assinati... I mean Air strike for freedom get him.
Sarcasm Off

ANd Merc looks like the thing you mentioned about the oil is coming to the surface with Libya too.

It looks like Western europe _ENGLAND AND FRANCE- get a lot of it from Lybia. My My .
interesting to see you say you thought the Iraq war was largely I about Oil, I wonder why Bush and others on the right were never so frank..
It doesn't sell to the public. Since the introduction of the TV into virtually every living room in America, public opinion is the driving force if the Pres can use military action.


[But you do know there's plenty of oil in the USA too. so seems there's more to it that that even..

For some reason our "leaders" don't want to dip into that. Ironically enough, I agree with the decision, but not for the reasons behind it. If we save all our oil for when it runs out in the rest of the world, then we will be in the posistion of dictating world wide oil prices


[I'm with log
these stinking wars aren't about freedom. I do admire your consistency, you don't take political sides.

Freedom is Definately not the PRIMARY reason, but I would say secondary. However, even WWII wasnt solely about freedom, had Hitler stopped at Poland, France, eastern Europe and Russia, we would never have stepped in.



[And If we'd spent the amount of money we spent on the wars on perfecting 2 or 3 alternatives we be free and clear of the ME, South America, Africa and Canada.

We are free & clear of those locations, what we aren't free &l clear of are the Big Oil Corporations

AS for the use of tax dollars to develope alt fuels, I think you would agree with me, thats not the govt business. If they did get involved, it would give them more power, big brother police state would increase, and they certainly would be forcing on us to use the alt fuel if they developed something, I PREFER IT COME FROM PRIVATE SOURCES SO I COULD CONTINUE TO MAKE MY OWN FREE AND CLEAR DECISION ON WHAT FUELS I WANT TO USE. I LOVE GASOLINE & DIESEL BURNING VEHICLES.

[logroller]

Jus' because you were nappin' doesn't mean there wasn't a long laundry list of issues about Iraq/Saddam that George W Bush put before the Congress and the UN.

The Congress LAWFULLY authorized the actions PRIOR TA GEORGE W BUSH pullin' the trigger, n' it's time ya got over it. It is how we do things in America.

Hit the books since ya didn't pay attention back then.



Ur makin it hard hard to stay positive when everything you say is wrong!

Here's a list of the reason we went into Iraq-- oil isn't on the list! And two of them are and were known to be false.


The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.-wiki

All the emboldened print have been shown to be false--think your single brain cell can see the discrepency in what was said and what actually was. Now look to UN Resolution 1973 and Gadaffi, he's attacking his own people, non-compliance with previous mandates, not letting outside officials monitor the activity and of course, establishing a no-fly zone. Hmmmmm, all of those were mentioned in the resoulution of Congress for the invasion of Iraq. There my book work, and the similarities between Iraq and Libya abound.

Here's a little bonus quote By Hunter S. Thompson just after 9/11.
"We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or where will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for war seem to know who did it or where to look for them.

This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed--for anyone, and certainly not for a baffled little creep like George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it off."

[fj1200]

Here's a little bonus quote By Hunter S. Thompson just after 9/11.

This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed--for anyone, and certainly not for a baffled little creep like George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it off."

Oh brother. Someone was still pissed about the 2000 election. :rolleyes:

[fj1200]

Apparently the only honest assessments of US foreign policy comes from foreign sources:

Gadhafi Is Facing a Coalition of the Unwilling (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0%2C1518%2C752521%2C00.html)


The US government, wary of getting stuck in another war in a Muslim country, would like to hand control of the mission over to NATO, but the alliance is divided. At a meeting on Monday, NATO ambassadors failed to agree on whether the alliance should take control of the mission. NATO involvement would require approval by all 28 members.
...
The conservative Die Welt writes:

"The easy part, strange as it may sound, was the implementation of the no-fly zone. What comes next is in danger of getting lost amid the conflicting interests of the participating countries and the limits of the UN mandate."

"What is the purpose of the operation now? To reduce Gadhafi's power and protect the rebels from his forces? This has already been done successfully. To restore Libya's lost unity? That would require regime change and a ground operation that everyone is rightly wary of, and which is not included in the UN mandate."

"Gadhafi benefits from the fact that he is facing a coalition of the -- more or less -- unwilling. But he must continue to fear the rebels, a collapse of his military power or being assassinated by someone within his own ranks. Until one of those things happen, he will continue to oppress and exploit the part of Libya that is still under his control."

The Financial Times Deutschland writes:

"When the allied powers met on the third day of the operation against Gadhafi's regime, it wasn't a pretty sight: The unity of the first hours of the operation seems to have vanished. While the coalition's military forces send combat aircraft and cruise missiles against Libyan positions, the politicians have nothing better to do than to argue publicly about the meaning and purpose of the operation -- and about who should take over the leadership role."

"The political squabbles threaten to jeopardize the operation and undermine its legitimacy. At the end of the day, the squabbling will benefit the Libyan regime -- and the international community will achieve the opposite of what it actually wanted."

The left-leaning Die Tageszeitung writes:

"How can the military operation proceed? There is significant disagreement among the participating Western countries within NATO and the EU, as well as among Libya's Arab neighbors. Should Gadhafi be overthrown? The EU and US President Obama had in fact called for just that, but that is not part of the UN Security Council's resolution authorizing military action. What happens if thousands of tribesmen follow Gadhafi's call and make their way to Benghazi with weapons in their hands? Should they be bombed from the air? And if the insurgents attempt to reclaim lost towns or march on the capital Tripoli, should they then be actively supported with military means? It is becoming clear that none of the participants in the euphemistically named Operation Odyssey Dawn have thought it through to the end, because they are all acting on the basis of domestic political motives and calculations."

"The rejection of military action by Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, and Germany's abstention in the UN Security Council vote, are also primarily motivated by domestic politics and electioneering. As it happens, their concerns (about the operation) could soon be confirmed by events as the Libyan conflict continues to unfold."

The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:

"There can be no doubt that what is at stake in Libya is nothing less than regime change. What Barack Obama said weeks ago is still true today: Gadhafi must go. … The UN Security Council mandate does not explicitly mention removing Gadhafi from power, and all the nations involved, including the Arab countries, are well advised to emphasize the protective nature of the operation."

"But just because a goal is not in the mandate does not mean it is wrong. … The mandate is directed against Gadhafi, and it is not intended to work in his favor. Hopefully the biggest impact of the UN resolution will be political. There is a chance that Gadhafi will realize his hopeless situation and go into exile. The United Nations has no interest in watching over a divided state from the air as an arbitrator."

The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:

"The prospect that Gadhafi could emerge victorious from the rebellion against his despotism prompted US President Barack Obama to abandon his cautious attitude and support France and Britain's initiative for military action. The German government, however, decided they preferred not to take any risks. Now Westerwelle has tried, rather unconvincingly, to explain why Germany is neither isolated within the EU nor NATO."

"The worrying thing about Germany's abstention in the UN Security Council vote is that the decisive factor was neither solidarity with Germany's key partners, nor efforts to forge a common European foreign and security policy. For that reason alone, Germany should have voted yes, even if it was unwilling to send German planes to Libya."

[Kathianne]

Oh brother. Someone was still pissed about the 2000 election. :rolleyes:

The resolution addressed his chosen bits and more, he of course chose to add the Thompson comment, while ignoring the resolution itself, other than the parts he chose to highlight.

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

Of course he and others ignore that Congress, like the President, like our allies also decided that Saddam's dissemblings on WMD's. They ignore the concerns of the first days, fearing chem/bio attacks.

They ignore the belief that the US needed a secure base in ME to operate from. If those folks aren't getting the need this year, the last couple days, they will stay purposefully in a sombolent state.

[fj1200]

White House: Libya fight is not war, it's 'kinetic military action' (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/03/white-house-libya-fight-not-war-its-kinetic-military-action)

Does this mean no one dies in a "kinetic military action"?


The kinetic energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy) of an object is the energy which it possesses due to its motion.

Let me get this straight, our military option is at this point a "kinetic" action which implies that it only proceeds because it is already in motion. Wouldn't we rather have military action that is controlled by a coherent foreign policy?

What if a surge ;) is required to re-energize, or correct the path of, the action that we have engaged in? Do we honestly think that the administration will be on board with that?

Why are all my paragraphs about our administrations actions ending in question marks?

Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhh. ?

[Thunderknuckles]

Language is a powerful tool in the minds of liberals. They believe they can make reality out of fantasy if they just conjure the right words to do it.
Meanwhile, the rest us sit back and shake our heads.

[LuvRPgrl]

]
[COLOR="blue"]There is ZERO cornparison to Iraq or Afghanistan under George W Bush.



Hmmmmmmmm........

Pointing out differences between the conflicts doesn't prove there aren't any simiilarities.

[logroller]

Oh brother. Someone was still pissed about the 2000 election. :rolleyes:

He was still pissed about the '68 DNC in chicago.

[logroller]

The resolution addressed his chosen bits and more, he of course chose to add the Thompson comment, while ignoring the resolution itself, other than the parts he chose to highlight.

http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

Of course he and others ignore that Congress, like the President, like our allies also decided that Saddam's dissemblings on WMD's. They ignore the concerns of the first days, fearing chem/bio attacks.

They ignore the belief that the US needed a secure base in ME to operate from. If those folks aren't getting the need this year, the last couple days, they will stay purposefully in a sombolent state.

I didn't ignore any part of the resolution, I used it to emphasize the similarities between iraq and libya, or did you ignore that part of my post?
Truth is the intelligence reports were available to congress, but many didn't bother to read them, they just trusted the prez's advice. And I don't remember a part of the resolution that said we need a ME base, or oil resources; but you and Merc seem to monday morning qback the issue, relyin on the orginal document as justification when it said nothing about ME bases or oil. I'm sure that's their intention, but that's not what they billed as a reason. I'm willing to support our being that country if its good for ours, I just don't appreciate being misled about the true mission.

[Kathianne]

I didn't ignore any part of the resolution, I used it to emphasize the similarities between iraq and libya, or did you ignore that part of my post?
Truth is the intelligence reports were available to congress, but many didn't bother to read them, they just trusted the prez's advice. And I don't remember a part of the resolution that said we need a ME base, or oil resources; but you and Merc seem to monday morning qback the issue, relyin on the orginal document as justification when it said nothing about ME bases or oil. I'm sure that's their intention, but that's not what they billed as a reason. I'm willing to support our being that country if its good for ours, I just don't appreciate being misled about the true mission.

dig a bit junior. You'll find many were cognizant of the trials and tribulations before you could post.

[OldMercsRule]

Originally Posted by OldMercsRule

Jus' because you were nappin' doesn't mean there wasn't a long laundry list of issues about Iraq/Saddam that George W Bush put before the Congress and the UN.

The Congress LAWFULLY authorized the actions PRIOR TA GEORGE W BUSH pullin' the trigger, n' it's time ya got over it. It is how we do things in America.

Hit the books since ya didn't pay attention back then


Ur makin it hard hard to stay positive when everything you say is wrong!

Hmmmmmmm...... n' now yer blamin' a feller on the internet with one functional brain cell who types in blue fer yer dark outlook?

Hmmmmmmm....... I say..........


Here's a list of the reason we went into Iraq-- oil isn't on the list! And two of them are and were known to be false.

"The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]

Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors.
Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the alleged 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them.
The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement."

-wiki

All the emboldened print have been shown to be false--think your single brain cell can see the discrepency in what was said and what actually was. Now look to UN Resolution 1973 and Gadaffi, he's attacking his own people, non-compliance with previous mandates, not letting outside officials monitor the activity and of course, establishing a no-fly zone. Hmmmmm, all of those were mentioned in the resoulution of Congress for the invasion of Iraq. There my book work, and the similarities between Iraq and Libya abound.

Hmmmmm..... ya think a few minutes on the net makes up fer yer 25 year NAP????? Hint: yer home werk is nowhere cornplete, (BTW: quit smokin' the whacky tabaceeeeeee toooooo! :happy0203:

Yer wrong about those points bein' false tooo butt: I'm not debatin' C & P.

Saddam lost a war and surrendered to US, and then violated the terms of surrender. Gadhafi got soooooooooo skeeeeeeeeered of what happened to Saddam he peeeeeeed his pants n' turned over all his nuke secrets n' chemical what not. Weren't ya payin' attention?


Here's a little bonus quote By Hunter S. Thompson just after 9/11.

"We are going to punish somebody for this attack, but just who or where will be blown to smithereens for it is hard to say. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Pakistan or Iraq, or possibly all three at once. Who knows? Not even the Generals in what remains of the Pentagon or the New York papers calling for war seem to know who did it or where to look for them.

This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed--for anyone, and certainly not for a baffled little creep like George W. Bush. All he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, the goofy child President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil industry to finish it off."


Logroller: as I said, I don't debate C & P.

Ya need to state yer OWN points clearly n' I will take 'em apart point by point, (n' I don't care if ya get yer OWN debate points from the terlet), state them in yer OWN werds not the quotes from others.

What I have stated is spot on.

Respectfully, JR

[logroller]

Hmmmmmmm...... n' now yer blamin' a feller on the internet with one functional brain cell who types in blue fer yer dark outlook?

Hmmmmmmm....... I say..........



Hmmmmm..... ya think a few minutes on the net makes up fer yer 25 year NAP????? Hint: yer home werk is nowhere cornplete, (BTW: quit smokin' the whacky tabaceeeeeee toooooo! :happy0203:

Yer wrong about those points bein' false tooo butt: I'm not debatin' C & P.

Saddam lost a war and surrendered to US, and then violated the terms of surrender. Gadhafi got soooooooooo skeeeeeeeeered of what happened to Saddam he peeeeeeed his pants n' turned over all his nuke secrets n' chemical what not. Weren't ya payin' attention?



Logroller: as I said, I don't debate C & P.

Ya need to state yer OWN points clearly n' I will take 'em apart point by point, (n' I don't care if ya get yer OWN debate points from the terlet), state them in yer OWN werds not the quotes from others.

What I have stated is spot on.

Respectfully, JR

Respectfully my ass, you've been a complete jerk in every post Ive written in my own words. And if you mean my own words as those I mispell, forgive me for my use of the english language as it was intended to be written. I shall no longer respond to your insults and blatant ignorance. Peace love and climate change-d

[logroller]

dig a bit junior. You'll find many were cognizant of the trials and tribulations before you could post.

Kath If you were refererring to what posters besides merc have stipulated, than you're right, but I wasnt' responding to them. This'll be the last post on merc's thread- he and i are at an impass. I want to debate, he wants to say no and cast insults.

[OldMercsRule]

Respectfully my ass,

Yer arse? :happy0203:


you've been a complete jerk in every post Ive written in my own words.

N' I'm responsible fer yer dark outlook tooooooo? Hmmmmmm...... :dunno:


And if you mean my own words as those I mispell, forgive me for my use of the english language as it was intended to be written.

burp...... :happy0203:


I shall no longer respond to your insults and blatant ignorance.

Hmmmmmm....kinda huffy aren't ya? :fu:


Peace love and climate change-d

Pfffffft. :pee:

[OldMercsRule]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

"Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader, has said jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime."


Hmmmmmmmm.....imagine that....... Our very own "community organizer" POTUS is helpin' al-Qaeda wup Gadhafi, (who is a good bud of his former preacher: Jerimiah "the Bull Frog" Wright). :laugh2: :laugh2:

Hey Alice, (in wonderland), glad ta meet ya.... Have ya seen that silly feller: Logroller, (I heard he rolls a real fat one fer some prime smokin').:happy0203:

[avatar4321]

Am I the only one who thinks this is intentionally designed to become a long war and tie up our military?

[OldMercsRule]

Am I the only one who thinks this is intentionally designed to become a long war and tie up our military?

Dunno if yer the only one....

Me thinks this fruit fly POTUS has zero experience at runnin' anything, and his tendency as a legislator was ta sit on the back bench n' vote "present", and let others run things.

That explains his job performance thus far purdy well.

Soooo.... "intentionally"? Nope. Stumble n' bumble n' flap his gums? Yup.

Any focus? Nope.

Do world events corntrol n' set the tone fer this fruit fly? Yup :happy0203:

[LuvRPgrl]

Am I the only one who thinks this is intentionally designed to become a long war and tie up our military?

I dont see what that would accomplish for obama. He is first and foremost thinking about re election. If you have a theory as to how it will help him, lets here it. If you have already posted it, my apologies, just tell me its already posted and I will go back and find it

[OldMercsRule]

I dont see what that would accomplish for obama. He is first and foremost thinking about re election. If you have a theory as to how it will help him, lets here it. If you have already posted it, my apologies, just tell me its already posted and I will go back and find it

Good point, which is rare fer you. :happy0203:

[Gaffer]

Am I the only one who thinks this is intentionally designed to become a long war and tie up our military?

There is a major move going on in the ME to get the old regimes out and put new theocratic rule in place in all the countries. The hard core rulers have to go in order to do this. It is part of a 20 year plan that was made public a few years ago. I posted it way back then but it would take some real digging to find it.

Whether the current administration grasps what's going on or is part of it is what is unknown at this time. Are they stupid or evil is the question.

[OldMercsRule]

There is a major move going on in the ME to get the old regimes out and put new theocratic rule in place in all the countries.

I dunno about any organized "major move": Gaff.

People always float cornspiricy theories, from time to time, which may or may not hold a kernal or kernal(s) of truth.

The Muslim brotherhood has been werkin' fer an Islamic caliphate fer decades, nearly a century.

This is related to the vulneribility of all autocratic regimes from Uncle Joe Stalin's (seven plus decades), on down, and most importantly DEMOGRAPHICS, IM not so HO.


The hard core rulers have to go in order to do this.

No chit Sherlok. The "hard core rulers" have ta go fer any change good or bad. That is the profound weakness George W Bush dealt with very directly and was hammered fer it by the termites in our country.


It is part of a 20 year plan that was made public a few years ago. I posted it way back then but it would take some real digging to find it.

Doubt there is any "plan", there are many plans by every tribe/sect/world power et al interested in oil.


Whether the current administration grasps what's going on or is part of it is what is unknown at this time. Are they stupid or evil is the question.

Inexperienced n' grossly incornpetent IMHO. :happy0203:

[Gaffer]

Your right Merc, the brotherhood has been at it for decades. And all their splinter groups, like al qaeda and hamas and the many others are all working toward the same goal. The brotherhood has even approved working together with the shites. There is a long term plan to establish a caliphate. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's fact.

They are using the cover of democracy in the various countries to get support from the west. Once the regimes fall and democracies are established the brotherhood and associates will take control through popular vote. Each country will then fall in line under hard core islamist rule very much like iran.

Yemen is going down soon. Syria will probably go like libya with major fighting. All will fall in the name of democracy and then be usurped by the islamists. It's a matter of where the power center will be, iran, turkey or egypt. The saudi's will just go along with whoever the key players are. will be interesting to see what they name the new empire.

It will happen because no one in the west has the resolve to stop them.

[Kathianne]

I moved some flame/ot posts to cage.

[avatar4321]

I dont see what that would accomplish for obama. He is first and foremost thinking about re election. If you have a theory as to how it will help him, lets here it. If you have already posted it, my apologies, just tell me its already posted and I will go back and find it

Chaos.

[OldMercsRule]

Chaos.


Ya mean: "never let a crisis go ta waste"?

Could be...... dim wit Democrats n' the Left leanin' media usually werk together n' the unengaged could fall into their orbit......

Hope not.

[Kathianne]

I see no reason to move those posts to flame zone, the nonsense was moved once, so they are deleted. Those that chose to keep posting such, are banned from this thread. Any ?'s pm me.