Thank God for a competent presidnet...!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Afganistan will not be a success as set out to accomplish by Bush, it will be cleaned up. Its not hackery, its facts. Just becasue facts come down against a particular president, does not make it hackery to point it out.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
LOL...of course, obama always is a success...maybe we should get rid of presidential term limits and then bush can stay on and finish afghanistan
remind me again who was against the surge in iraq and who said it would fail and make things work....oh yeah...obama, so if obama was president then, iraq would be his mess
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Gee, it seemed to work well in Gulf War I.
LOL...of course, obama always is a success...maybe we should get rid of presidential term limits and then bush can stay on and finish afghanistan
remind me again who was against the surge in iraq and who said it would fail and make things work....oh yeah...obama, so if obama was president then, iraq would be his mess
Iraq is a mess.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
its get better everyday...and the surge helped that...obama would have never implemented the surge
and in afghanistan, obama is essentially following bush's plan, but of course you only want to give obama the credit for success, despite afghanistan not being a success right now
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
This is true.... which is why I agree it is a VERY good thing Obama is not involved.... leave it to the people who know what they are doing.
How so? I would say this is a very long way from being resolved and nearly impossible to tell how it will hurt/help the US. What do you see that makes you think it will be 'very positive for the US'???
It's my contention that comparing the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the no-fly zone in Libya is drown-on-your-own-spit stupid.
And the one-trick pony strikes again. By the way, you may have missed the part of my post where I said that I do not support the no-fly zone.
By the way, I don't recall a lot of serious objection from anyone to the enforcement of the no-fly zones in Iraq from 1992 onward (the sanctions regime was criticized, however). It wasn't until the proposed invasion and occupation that anyone raised serious opposition to our policy vis a vis Iraq. So, one-trick pony, there is no hypocrisy here.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
No, it is not an invasion.
Obana is very involved, he is just not the frontman for it like Bush was.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
how do you figure? it is an intrusion into their country's airspace, which byh definition is an invasion....do you really think that if china sent jets to enforce a no fly zone over california that we wouldn't take that as an invasion.
Again, it clearly depends on what you mean by invasion. There is a good argument for both positions.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Jarod, this thread doesn't really work. Libya was one of the countries, which, after the invasion of Iraq, it become suddenly cooperative with Bush regarding WMDs. Were Obama to be making strong diplomatic moves against a nation in which Bush had no success with (obviously there are a lot of those floating around, such as Iran and Venezuela), then you'd have a point.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
excuse me toe licker...i never said it was the same. once again, is it your contention that invading airspace is not an invasion?
blah, blah, one trick pony....you keep repeating, thus showing you're the one trick pony.
like i said, you far lefties are only okay with invasions that shoot bombs from planes. you get all pissy when we have to put boots on the ground. thats hypocrisy. we lost lives by keeping the no fly zone over iraq, but that was ok.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yes
if china sent their jets and bombed washington dc....are you saying that would not be an invasion?
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
what does invasion mean to you? last i checked it was an intrusion...how is flying jets into a soveriegn country for the purpose of exerting your military will and possibly or actually, bombing that country not an invasion?
please explain
You claimed that it is hypocritical for someone to support this action while opposing the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The obvious implication is that the two are in some way similar.
Pee Wee Herman called. He wants his schtick back.
like i said, you far lefties are only okay with invasions that shoot bombs from planes. you get all pissy when we have to put boots on the ground. thats hypocrisy. we lost lives by keeping the no fly zone over iraq, but that was ok.
Like I said, I don't support the no-fly zone in Libya. And now it's hypocrisy to support limited military engagements but not invasions and occupations? Hilarious.
By the way, how many American troops were killed in Iraq and how much money was spent enforcing the no-fly zones from 1992 through March 2003 as compared to March 2003 to the present?
I'm not sure how you can even write the stuff you're writing, Crawfish. Did you give your brain the day off or something?