Obama, The Wars, and You

[Bill]

In the interest of not hijacking another thread, let's go with this one.

Why has O not kept his campaign promise to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Are these reasons acceptable to you?

Discuss.






(BTW, Chas, I'm a Libertarian, not a Pub. Check the avatar.....it might be a clue!)

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

In the interest of not hijacking another thread, let's go with this one.

Why has O not kept his campaign promise to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Are these reasons acceptable to you?

Discuss.






(BTW, Chas, I'm a Libertarian, not a Pub. Check the avatar.....it might be a clue!)

Did you ask the Hawks that same question?

I could have sworn I heard someone say, you must listen to the General on the ground.

BTW, the draw down Obama Marks End of U.S. Combat Mission in Iraq, Salutes Bush - FoxNews.com

Patience Grass Hopper, it's only been 23 1/2 months ... and he's still gotten some work done despite the Party of NO!

[Exotix]

Obama cares about killing Bin Laden ?

YouTube - Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version)

[Bill]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

Did you ask the Hawks that same question?

I could have sworn I heard someone say, you must listen to the General on the ground.

BTW, the draw down Obama Marks End of U.S. Combat Mission in Iraq, Salutes Bush - FoxNews.com

Patience Grass Hopper, it's only been 23 1/2 months ... and he's still gotten some work done despite the Party of NO!

I already heard the hawks during the '08 campaign. I still remember with fondness McCain's 100 years at war would be fine with him comment. And guess what? I didn't like what I heard.


Patience? I'm running out of patience. American soldiers are dying while we are all sitting around nicely discussing patience. The "Party of No" has nothing to do with us still invading and occupying those two countries. O had the power from day one to end both of them, and "the Party of No" couldn't do anything about it. Even now, what are Pubs going to do if O says that's it, the wars are over? Cry? O is the Commander in Chief. If the Generals prosecuting the wars don't like it, well tough noogies. They follow orders, and if the orders are to bring the boys back home and stop getting them killed, then the generals will have to do just that.

How are you going to explain to the last mother of a dead US servicemember that his sacrifice was worth something? What about the last 100 service members who get killed?

[mrvette]

Then there is ME, who would very easily win the terror war, and as a side casualty wipe out islam from the face of the earth.....

easy do....done in 6 weeks, maybe less....


dedication and BALLS, that's all......

just think how nice the world would be without islam......

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

I already heard the hawks during the '08 campaign. I still remember with fondness McCain's 100 years at war would be fine with him comment. And guess what? I didn't like what I heard.


Patience? I'm running out of patience. American soldiers are dying while we are all sitting around nicely discussing patience. The "Party of No" has nothing to do with us still invading and occupying those two countries. O had the power from day one to end both of them, and "the Party of No" couldn't do anything about it. Even now, what are Pubs going to do if O says that's it, the wars are over? Cry? O is the Commander in Chief. If the Generals prosecuting the wars don't like it, well tough noogies. They follow orders, and if the orders are to bring the boys back home and stop getting them killed, then the generals will have to do just that.

How are you going to explain to the last mother of a dead US servicemember that his sacrifice was worth something? What about the last 100 service members who get killed?

Ok I can agree with you there, but he's cleaning up as much crap that was left for him as he can, even without the help of our Elected Politicians.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by mrvette

Then there is ME, who would very easily win the terror war, and as a side casualty wipe out islam from the face of the earth.....

easy do....done in 6 weeks, maybe less....


dedication and BALLS, that's all......

just think how nice the world would be without islam......

Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex back in the 50's.

There is always going to be some boogie man to defeat, some war to prosecute. Go back to the 1920's. It was those damn anarchists that were going to take over the world if they weren't stopped. Then, in the 1950's, it was those damnable commies. Now we have the Muslims, who curiously, other than a little Barbary pirate trouble in the 1800's have been trying to destroy us forever, even though we had no trouble with them until we started getting involved militarily in the Middle East. I mean, are these some lazy people or what? They have this world domination thing going on, but never hurt us until we sent troops over to their part of the world first? They must be the lazyist (sp?) world dominators on the planet.

Even if you destroy the Middle East, I can guarantee there will be a new boogie man, a new enemy to fight. Your government will dream one up.

[ChasC5]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex back in the 50's.

There is always going to be some boogie man to defeat, some war to prosecute. Go back to the 1920's. It was those damn anarchists that were going to take over the world if they weren't stopped. Then, in the 1950's, it was those damnable commies. Now we have the Muslims, who curiously, other than a little Barbary pirate trouble in the 1800's have been trying to destroy us forever, even though we had no trouble with them until we started getting involved militarily in the Middle East. I mean, are these some lazy people or what? They have this world domination thing going on, but never hurt us until we sent troops over to their part of the world first? They must be the lazyist (sp?) world dominators on the planet.

Even if you destroy the Middle East, I can guarantee there will be a new boogie man, a new enemy to fight. Your government will dream one up.

The Tea Party is going to hate you.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by ChasC5

The Tea Party is going to hate you.

The corrupted, in the tank for the Pubs Tea Party might, but the folks who were just plain upset about deficit spending and hold true to those beliefs won't.

If we could no longer deficit spend, there is a whole lot that we couldn't afford to do anymore. The Iraq and Afgan wars, for starters. Don't worry, though, your side gets some painful cuts, too. In fact, screw it.....pain for everybody!

Sorry guys, no more money for jet fuel, bombs, or bullets.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

The corrupted, in the tank for the Pubs Tea Party might, but the folks who were just plain upset about deficit spending and hold true to those beliefs won't.

If we could no longer deficit spend, there is a whole lot that we couldn't afford to do anymore. The Iraq and Afgan wars, for starters. Don't worry, though, your side gets some painful cuts, too. In fact, screw it.....pain for everybody!

Sorry guys, no more money for jet fuel, bombs, or bullets.

Where was everyone on the right when Bush was doing everything he could to start Armegheddon ?

The Libs were doing everything they could ... and you were calling them traitors before calling Obama a communist and a nazi ...

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex back in the 50's.

There is always going to be some boogie man to defeat, some war to prosecute. Go back to the 1920's. It was those damn anarchists that were going to take over the world if they weren't stopped. Then, in the 1950's, it was those damnable commies. Now we have the Muslims, who curiously, other than a little Barbary pirate trouble in the 1800's have been trying to destroy us forever, even though we had no trouble with them until we started getting involved militarily in the Middle East. I mean, are these some lazy people or what? They have this world domination thing going on, but never hurt us until we sent troops over to their part of the world first? They must be the lazyist (sp?) world dominators on the planet.

Even if you destroy the Middle East, I can guarantee there will be a new boogie man, a new enemy to fight. Your government will dream one up.

Where in the hell you learn your version of world history at???

you are totally clueless on that front....

not to worry, they will screw us out of our existence in our own back yards.....both literally and figuratively.....

I"m age 66.5 now, I only care for my kids, but I dunno why, they are liberals....seriously, waste of angst....

they dead and they don't even know it, because of their poly ticks....

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Where was everyone on the right when Bush was doing everything he could to start Armegheddon ?

The Libs were doing everything they could ... and you were calling them traitors before calling Obama a communist and a nazi ...

<Sigh>

There are more than two political parties in this country, contrary to popular opinion. The Libertarians (and yes Paulie Sr., too) were right there with you left wingers arguing against the invasion of Iraq. In that respect, our circles were concentric. We agreed, that invading Iraq=unnecessary war.

Unfortunately, neither the Dems nor the Libertarians had the stroke to stop Shrub (that came from Molly Ivans, a Texan, BTW ) from unleashing more war on his people.

[Exotix]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

<Sigh>

There are more than two political parties in this country, contrary to popular opinion.

The Libertarians (and yes Paulie Sr., too) were right there with you left wingers arguing against the invasion of Iraq. In that respect, our circles were concentric. We agreed, that invading Iraq=unnecessary war.

Unfortunately, neither the Dems nor the Libertarians had the stroke to stop Shrub (that came from Molly Ivans, a Texan, BTW ) from unleashing more war on his people.

Let me know right away when the Libertarians Paulie Sr. and the Tea Party Paulie Jr. declare there's a (D) amongst them ... Bachmann photo-op'g with people who aren't white doesn't make it ...

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Exotix

Let me know right away when the Libertarians Paulie Sr. and the Tea Party Paulie Jr. declare there's a (D) amongst them ... Bachmann photo-op'g with people who aren't white doesn't make it ...

Well, Paulie Sr.(R) btw, not (L) and Dennis Kucinich (D) agree with each other every so often, in fact, IIRC, they cosponsored a bill together.

The thing about Libertarians is, they go their own way. Sometimes that way lines up with one of the majors, as in the case of Libs and Dems both being opposed to the Iraq war, or in the case of the Tea Party and the Libs both being against deficit spending and big government, generally.

As to the "all white people", I really don't know. The Libertarians believe in a small balanced budget government that leaves the people alone and stays out of their personal business. The Libertarians' foreign policy could probably be most aptly described as "walk softly, but carry a big stick", IOW, strong defense, but don't screw with the rest of the world for no reason.

The Libertarians in particular are against the War on Drugs, so why minority folks from the hood aren't Libertarian, I can't really understand. After all, it is those folks getting arrested and jailed for drugs, something that shouldn't be a crime anyway. Why aren't they Libertarian? Your guess is as good as mine.

[ChasC5]

What? Drug Adicts and Polotics?