# Saddam got a trial, Qaddafi got a bullet



## JRK

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp

You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more

URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News.
BREAKING NEWS
U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News


----------



## paulitician

Very good point. And this was the most blatant up front 'War for Oil' i've ever seen. Shame on the Liberal Press and all others who were cheerleading for this war.


----------



## California Girl

JRK said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more



Not true. The Brits, the French, and plenty of other nations participated in the air strikes against Gadaffi. 

This was not our call. It was the Libyans. Just like Saddam was the Iraqi's call.


----------



## traveler52

Saddam was tried by the Iraqi People.  Gaddafi was killed by Rebel Forces, trying to escape.

Not quite the same thing.


----------



## paulitician

Pretty gruesome stuff. I don't see anything to celebrate here. Our new puppets could be even more brutal than Ghaddafi. So excuse me if i don't jump for joy.


----------



## Avatar4321

traveler52 said:


> Saddam was tried by the Iraqi People.  Gaddafi was killed by Rebel Forces, trying to escape.
> 
> Not quite the same thing.



This is what I would have said had i been earlier


----------



## JRK

The point is that I am not sure why Obama gets a free pass on this stuff. It matters not that the brits an French also attacked.
Why did we then?
iLet me add that there was close to 50 other countries that helped us with Iraq, yet the two are treated so different


----------



## NYcarbineer

Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.


----------



## kwc57

JRK said:


> The point is that I am not sure why Obama gets a free pass on this stuff. It matters not that the brits an French also attacked.
> Why did we then?
> iLet me add that there was close to 50 other countries that helped us with Iraq, yet the two are treated so different



The difference is that American forces caught Saddam and had him in custody and could control what happened.  If Iraqi forces had caught him, he would have died on the spot too.


----------



## Claudette

kwc57 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that I am not sure why Obama gets a free pass on this stuff. It matters not that the brits an French also attacked.
> Why did we then?
> iLet me add that there was close to 50 other countries that helped us with Iraq, yet the two are treated so different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that American forces caught Saddam and had him in custody and could control what happened.  If Iraqi forces had caught him, he would have died on the spot too.
Click to expand...



Bingo.


----------



## paulitician

What's Human Rights Watch saying today? I don't usually give them credibility anymore but i find them entertaining sometimes. I'll check out what they have to say about this.


----------



## Old Rocks

JRK said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more



Dumb ass, Gaddafi was responsible for Lockerby. He ordered the deaths of Americans. His death was well deserved. 

Bush went after Hussien, and failed to get Bin Laden, who  was responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on American soil. Bush invaded Iraq on the basis of lies, and created a worse situation there than already existed.


----------



## The Infidel

Old Rocks said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass, Gaddafi was responsible for Lockerby. He ordered the deaths of Americans. His death was well deserved.
> 
> Bush went after Hussien, and failed to get Bin Laden, who  was responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on American soil. Bush invaded Iraq on the basis of lies, and created a worse situation there than already existed.
Click to expand...



Obama gets hi 5's & Bush is demonized.... typical BULLSHIT


----------



## Trajan

JRK said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more



I think  see your point and agree wholeheartedly,  which is I think that without us, the farcical opéra bouffe  that was the nato effort in/over Libya would never have reached this point, period. 

Qaddafi wold be alive and in power, still.


The whole point being, take the reaction of the media and the melange of human rights NGO's, the UN hum rights comm. etc.  this week, or I should say the non reaction of those entities and balance that against  the reactions to say Saddams hanging, the deaths of his sons ( I remember some serious questioning of the whys and where fores of that 'fire fight' etc.), the uproar over  collateral damage casualties in  Iraq, Afghanistan wherever, the barbarity of the 'Northern Alliance' that the CIA had a hand in funding etc etc etc...


its no secret;  when a dem. president commits us to war, or assassinations or sppt of either, its a righteous cause, whens its a rep? they are bloodthirsty cowboys...


----------



## paulitician

YAY!! WHOOPY!! They murdered his family too!! Seriously,why are Americans celebrating this? There will be no benefit to them at all. Cheap oil? Yea don't count on it. And their own country is still crumbling. Oh well,another convenient distraction i guess.


----------



## Trajan

Old Rocks said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass, Gaddafi was responsible for Lockerby. He ordered the deaths of Americans. His death was well deserved.
> 
> Bush went after Hussien, and failed to get Bin Laden, who  was responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on American soil. Bush invaded Iraq on the basis of lies, and created a worse situation there than already existed.
Click to expand...



your memory is either faulty or is very selective.


----------



## Baruch Menachem

we were in control of the process in Iraq.  If we had dealt with Hussein the way the Iraqis wanted to, we would have been universally condemned. 

The Libyans were in charge of this.  From the story I saw and the pictures, they captured him alive and then just went "The hell with it" and blew him away.   He pretty much died by his rules rather than ours.


----------



## Inthemiddle

JRK said:


> The point is that I am not sure why Obama gets a free pass on this stuff. It matters not that the brits an French also attacked.



Not sure why it matters not that the French and UK participated.  Not sure why everything in the world is Obama's fault.  That's no better than the idiot liberal wing-nuts who tried to blame everything in the world on Bush.


----------



## Mustang

paulitician said:


> Pretty gruesome stuff. I don't see anything to celebrate here. Our new puppets could be even more brutal than Ghaddafi. So excuse me if i don't jump for joy.


 
If only you could have gone there to protect poor ol' Ghaddafi.


----------



## paulitician

Baruch Menachem said:


> we were in control of the process in Iraq.  If we had dealt with Hussein the way the Iraqis wanted to, we would have been universally condemned.
> 
> The Libyans were in charge of this.  From the story I saw and the pictures, they captured him alive and then just went "The hell with it" and blew him away.   He pretty much died by his rules rather than ours.



So they executed him with no trial. Americans better be very wary of their new puppets. They could end up being a much bigger problem than Gaddafi was.


----------



## Sallow

Fair trial? Saddam got a kangaroo show trial followed by a farce and brutal execution. And it turns out Iraq was a war crime. Saddam surrendered. He should have gone to the Hague or at least gotten the Amin/Noriega treatment. Gaddafi was offered multiple outs. He chose to fight. Buh bye.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JRK said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more



Yes, Saddam was a bad guy of the worst sort, and GWB was a bad guy of the measely sort.  Interesting comparison, JRK.  You may be growing up.


----------



## JRK

Inthemiddle said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that I am not sure why Obama gets a free pass on this stuff. It matters not that the brits an French also attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure why it matters not that the French and UK participated.  Not sure why everything in the world is Obama's fault.  That's no better than the idiot liberal wing-nuts who tried to blame everything in the world on Bush.
Click to expand...


what does the french or the UK have to do with this? That does not give BHO permission to by-pass us, the tax payer to do what he wants to when he does with our military
and I am not sure what fault has to do with this, it has nothing to do with "blame" the victims here are those who died and those who paid taxes so they could be killed, not Obama


----------



## jillian

California Girl said:


> Not true. The Brits, the French, and plenty of other nations participated in the air strikes against Gadaffi.
> 
> This was not our call. It was the Libyans. Just like Saddam was the Iraqi's call.



i love the jerk's (oops... jrk's) fauxrage. don't you?


----------



## Unkotare

Old Rocks said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass, Gaddafi was responsible for Lockerby. He ordered the deaths of Americans. His death was well deserved.
> 
> Bush went after Hussien, and failed to get Bin Laden, who  was responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on American soil. Bush invaded Iraq on the basis of lies, and created a worse situation there than already existed.
Click to expand...




You fucking hypocrite.


----------



## rdean

Saddam - 3,000 Americans dead, 50,000 American maimed, our military depleted, 1 to 3 trillion in cost
The people hate our guts and want us dead.  Threw shoes at the president.

Qaddafi - a few drones
Qaddafi sent a letter to Republicans thanking them for their support.  The people put up billboards of the president, thanking him for his support.

There are some pluses.  Bush's friends were able to make billions off Iraq.  That's the only "good" thing I can think of.


----------



## paulitician

Man,so many Left/Democrat Chickenhawks these days. What happened? Now it's only "KILL KILL KILL!!!" for these people. This is why i don't trust the Left anymore. They are not honest people. And they're just being duped again anyway. Oh well,onto the next war i guess.


----------



## Unkotare

Sallow said:


> Fair trial? Saddam got a kangaroo show trial followed by a farce and brutal execution. And it turns out Iraq was a war crime. Saddam surrendered. He should have gone to the Hague or at least gotten the Amin/Noriega treatment. .





Go hop a flight to Baghdad and let the Iraqi government know how you feel about it. I'm sure they're up at night worrying about it.


----------



## Trajan

Sallow said:


> Fair trial? Saddam got a kangaroo show trial followed by a farce and brutal execution. And it turns out Iraq was a war crime. Saddam surrendered. He should have gone to the Hague or at least gotten the Amin/Noriega treatment. Gaddafi was offered multiple outs. He chose to fight. Buh bye.



xhfdoegab *4v__ne, Klweasb. Bgahrayocv!1


----------



## Trajan

jillian said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. The Brits, the French, and plenty of other nations participated in the air strikes against Gadaffi.
> 
> This was not our call. It was the Libyans. Just like Saddam was the Iraqi's call.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i love the jerk's (oops... jrk's) fauxrage. don't you?
Click to expand...


I love your attmept at addressing your own inadequacies....


----------



## mudwhistle

In their own words the left claims neither was a direct threat, so why is Obama pounding his chest over a mission he washed his hands of yet now he wants a victory lap,  considering  he saw fit to be highly critical of another(Iraq)? 

I just want to hear Obama supporters opinions.


----------



## NoNukes

America did not invade Libya.


----------



## paulitician

Lots of Left/Democrat Chickenhawks flyin out of the woodwork these days. Good luck reasoning with them. Gaddafi was absolutely no threat to anyone,let alone the U.S. As usual,it's always about the 'D' & 'R' thing. Depends on who's in there for the Chickenhawks.


----------



## paulitician

Left/Democrat Chickenhawks are pretty entertaining. World's biggest dishonest hypocrites for sure. I'm actually enjoying watching them spin this stupid war.


----------



## mudwhistle

NoNukes said:


> America did not invade Libya.



No, it's better to bomb them from the air and not clean up the mess. 

That's much more civil.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.

End of story.


----------



## Lovebears65

DemocRats = hypocrites


----------



## earlycuyler

mudwhistle said:


> In their own words the left claims neither was a direct threat, so why is Obama pounding his chest over a mission he washed his hands of yet now he wants a victory lap,  considering  he saw fit to be highly critical of another(Iraq)?
> 
> I just want to hear Obama supporters opinions.



He is desperate for any positive news that can be associated with his presidency. He has failed so long they are trying to make a win out of anything


----------



## Care4all

NYcarbineer said:


> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.


and Saddam's 2 sons were assassinated, if memory serves?

i personally would have preferred for gadafi to be captured and put on trial instead of the rebels killing him though!


----------



## Photonic

Question: Why is Libya acceptable but not Iraq?

Answer: Partisanship is funny that way.


----------



## FuelRod




----------



## paulitician

This Libyan War was also Unconstitutional. I see many are still conveniently ignoring this. The President did not go to Congress for approval. It was an illegal intervention. The Chickenhawks can go ahead and celebrate this but im not.


----------



## JRK

Care4all said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> and Saddam's 2 sons were assassinated, if memory serves?
> 
> i personally would have preferred for gadafi to be captured and put on trial instead of the rebels killing him though!
Click to expand...


Saddam's 2 kids were given a chance to surrender if memory serves me right, As far as what occurred the first day, Saddam had years to prevent his demise, Not sure Qaddafi did


----------



## paulitician

I'm really interested in hearing what Leftist orgs like Human Rights Watch have to say about this. They have a long history of inconsistency and hypocrisy.


----------



## Care4all

paulitician said:


> I'm really interested in hearing what Leftist orgs like Human Rights Watch have to say about this. They have a long history of inconsistency and hypocrisy.


i doubt they can say anything, it was a war battle that gadafi was involved in, that got him killed...as others in these battles were killed by gadafi's people.


----------



## paulitician

Care4all said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really interested in hearing what Leftist orgs like Human Rights Watch have to say about this. They have a long history of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt they can say anything, it was a war battle that gadafi was involved in, that got him killed...as others in these battles were killed by gadafi's people.
Click to expand...


Yea i hear ya but i do think NATO's bombing and killing his Grandchildren should be thoroughly investigated. I believe that was a War Crime. Human Rights Watch should take the lead on this.


----------



## Mustang

paulitician said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really interested in hearing what Leftist orgs like Human Rights Watch have to say about this. They have a long history of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt they can say anything, it was a war battle that gadafi was involved in, that got him killed...as others in these battles were killed by gadafi's people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea i hear ya but i do think NATO's bombing and killing his Grandchildren should be thoroughly investigated. I believe that was a War Crime. Human Rights Watch should take the lead on this.
Click to expand...

 
Exactly who is the person or persons who you think should be prosecuted for war crimes?


----------



## Lovebears65

When the republicans do anything with the military the left is up in arms. When  the democrats do anything military they are  isn't this great or look away nothing to see here.


----------



## JRK

Care4all said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really interested in hearing what Leftist orgs like Human Rights Watch have to say about this. They have a long history of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt they can say anything, it was a war battle that gadafi was involved in, that got him killed...as others in these battles were killed by gadafi's people.
Click to expand...


Here is the issue. Obama took action with no involvement from congress. GWB has been drug thru the more crap about Iraq than any man ever deserved
Bush did it the right way, chicken, guts and feathers and if any-one was lying it was the UN. With this event we still do not know why Qaddafi was taken out and taken out by this administration. That war battle began when US fighter jets and drones bombed the living shit out of Qaddafi's defenses
Its not a matter of was it the right thing to do, we dont know. we were never told why this event has taken place


----------



## High_Gravity

kwc57 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that I am not sure why Obama gets a free pass on this stuff. It matters not that the brits an French also attacked.
> Why did we then?
> iLet me add that there was close to 50 other countries that helped us with Iraq, yet the two are treated so different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that American forces caught Saddam and had him in custody and could control what happened.  If Iraqi forces had caught him, he would have died on the spot too.
Click to expand...


You nailed it.


----------



## JRK

Mustang said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt they can say anything, it was a war battle that gadafi was involved in, that got him killed...as others in these battles were killed by gadafi's people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea i hear ya but i do think NATO's bombing and killing his Grandchildren should be thoroughly investigated. I believe that was a War Crime. Human Rights Watch should take the lead on this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly who is the person or persons who you think should be prosecuted for war crimes?
Click to expand...


Who gave the order to bomb the living hell out of them with no involvement from the US congress. Those are not Obama's jets, missiles and drones to do with what ever he wants to do
There the american tax payers


----------



## Unkotare

Care4all said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> and Saddam's 2 sons were assassinated, if memory serves?!
Click to expand...




Being killed during war is not assassination.


----------



## mudwhistle

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.



Spotting hypocrisy is different from opposition.


----------



## High_Gravity

Care4all said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> and Saddam's 2 sons were assassinated, if memory serves?
> 
> i personally would have preferred for gadafi to be captured and put on trial instead of the rebels killing him though!
Click to expand...


Yes but it wasn't our call, the Libyans caught Gaddafi and did what they did, the only reason Saddam went on trial is because he was captured by US Forces, if Iraqis caught him he would have been killed too.


----------



## Cuyo

Because Ed Schultz said so, troll.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

(D) vs. (R)


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.



Leftwing nuts who were against the Iraq war now support action in Libya because a Democrat is president.

End of story.


----------



## mudwhistle

FuelRod said:


>



Somebody spotted a bulge under Obama's suit coat and asked him what was causing it. 

Obama pulls out this wicked looking Rambo knife and the startled questioner asked him "WTF!!! What do you need a knife like that for?"

Obama says; "Hunting".

Questioner; "What on Earth do you hunt with a knife?"

Obama; "Name it."


----------



## JRK

High_Gravity said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that I am not sure why Obama gets a free pass on this stuff. It matters not that the brits an French also attacked.
> Why did we then?
> iLet me add that there was close to 50 other countries that helped us with Iraq, yet the two are treated so different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that American forces caught Saddam and had him in custody and could control what happened.  If Iraqi forces had caught him, he would have died on the spot too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You nailed it.
Click to expand...


That's exactly why that situation had to have our leadership. what happens next in Libyia? We are already seeing Egypt and what a mess it has become


----------



## Trajan

this won't last long on you tube...


&#x202b;


being taken out of a truck, able, but barely to walk...then....*shrugs*...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

kwc57 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that I am not sure why Obama gets a free pass on this stuff. It matters not that the brits an French also attacked.
> Why did we then?
> iLet me add that there was close to 50 other countries that helped us with Iraq, yet the two are treated so different
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that American forces caught Saddam and had him in custody and could control what happened.  If Iraqi forces had caught him, he would have died on the spot too.
Click to expand...


That can't be... Dick Turban and John F'n Kerry (he served in Vietnam you know) told us that American troops were running around like Nazi's killing men and women in the dead of night....


----------



## Uncensored2008

jillian said:


> i love the jerk's (oops... jrk's) fauxrage. don't you?



I shed no tears over Quadaffi. 

Bet you spilled buckets over Saddam though, he was captured by a REPUBLICAN, making him the good guy - huh Jillian?

Dumb as a bag of hammers, always...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

NYcarbineer said:


> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.



And Obama tried to assassinate Ghaddiffi on the first day of the war. Your point?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Trajan said:


> this won't last long on you tube...
> 
> &#x202b;
> 
> being taken out of a truck, able, but barely to walk...then....*shrugs*...



These people seem like a hoot.


----------



## JRK

Uncensored2008 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i love the jerk's (oops... jrk's) fauxrage. don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I shed no tears over Quadaffi.
> 
> Bet you spilled buckets over Saddam though, he was captured by a REPUBLICAN, making him the good guy - huh Jillian?
> 
> Dumb as a bag of hammers, always...
Click to expand...


I have been waiting on the first one to attack. Saddam and the Iraqi people got what they deserved. they where not thrown to th wolves like these people have been and god knows whats next there. Egypt is not looking to good, if it was it would be on the front page of every news paper


----------



## USArmyRetired

I'm sure all the Jews will be gloating over this. 

A Comprehensive History of Zionist Crimes

A Comprehensive History of Zionist Crimes


Operation Trojan (Libya frame-up), 1986

In the Eighties, when Reagan was US President, Libya was frequently selected as the 'perpetrator' of Israel and the Mossad's various deceptions and terrorist acts. Whenever a Bush was in the White House, the crimes would be blamed on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clinton, although something of a sleazeball, appears to have resisted some of his blackmailers' demands such as large-scale invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Hence, his trysts with Monica Lewinsky were publicized.

In April 1986, a bomb exploded in La Belle Discotheque in Berlin. Three were killed including two US soldiers, and over 200 injured. Ten days later, Ronald Reagan gave the order to bomb Libya. Around 37 people were killed including Colonel Gaddafi's adopted baby daughter, and over 200 wounded. This was the result of the Mossad's Operation Trojan - ....that conned some countries into believing Libya was actually behind terrorism such as the Berlin disco bombing. It is true that there was a territorial dispute between the US and Libya, following some provocative US naval manoeuvres in the Gulf of Sidra. But Libya was innocent of many of the terrorist crimes it was alleged to have committed.

Shimon Peres had given the order to launch Operation Trojan in February 1986. One of Israel's ships would broadcast misleading pre-recorded digital transmissions that could only be received by a Mossad device planted in Tripoli - the Trojan. The Trojan would retransmit a signal on a frequency known to be used for official Libyan business, ready to be received by the Americans or their allies. The source would appear to be emanating from such location as to appear genuine, and Western intelligence services would find that the Mossad also had confirmation that these series of "terrorist orders" were supposedly being broadcast to various Libyan embassies.


----------



## High_Gravity

JRK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that American forces caught Saddam and had him in custody and could control what happened.  If Iraqi forces had caught him, he would have died on the spot too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You nailed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly why that situation had to have our leadership. what happens next in Libyia? We are already seeing Egypt and what a mess it has become
Click to expand...


Who knows, I'm just glad it won't be thousands of American troops fighting for their lives on the streets of Tripoli trying to fix it.


----------



## JRK

High_Gravity said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> You nailed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why that situation had to have our leadership. what happens next in Libyia? We are already seeing Egypt and what a mess it has become
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who knows, I'm just glad it won't be thousands of American troops fighting for their lives on the streets of Tripoli trying to fix it.
Click to expand...


What is the difference?
We started this mess, now just leave it?
That is not what leadership demands


----------



## Katzndogz

Saddam Hussein was captured by Americans, tried, convicted and executed by Iraqis.

Gadaffi was captured by terrorists in Libya, surrendered, and shot.  Once in the head and once in the chest.


----------



## High_Gravity

JRK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly why that situation had to have our leadership. what happens next in Libyia? We are already seeing Egypt and what a mess it has become
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows, I'm just glad it won't be thousands of American troops fighting for their lives on the streets of Tripoli trying to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the difference?
> We started this mess, now just leave it?
> That is not what leadership demands
Click to expand...


The Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi before we did anything, so we did not "start this mess", please tell me you see the difference between us invading Iraq and this Libyan conflict.


----------



## Contumacious

JRK said:


> Saddam got a trial, Qaddafi got a bullet



Wrong again, Saddam was Lynched - NO TRIAL.

.


----------



## JRK

High_Gravity said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows, I'm just glad it won't be thousands of American troops fighting for their lives on the streets of Tripoli trying to fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference?
> We started this mess, now just leave it?
> That is not what leadership demands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi before we did anything, so we did not "start this mess", please tell me you see the difference between us invading Iraq and this Libyan conflict.
Click to expand...


Your telling me the exact bombing that took out Qaddafi's defenses before the Libyan people rose up had nothing to do with starting this mess?
You allow Qaddafi to have the tools he had before we pounded it into sand, there is no up rise
Look Qaddafi was an evil man, my issue with you Libs lied about Iraq and GWB until people actually believed it, now nothing, not a peep
and with IRAQ it was all out n the open, this mess was 100% ours, we own, we caused, we supported and congress ( the representatives of the people) never had a say in it. That is not Obama's military


----------



## Ravi

Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraqis were rising up against Saddam.

Like back when Bush 1 promised to help them if they did and then didn't follow through.

When we invaded, Iraqis were happy enough with their dictator.


----------



## mudwhistle

So Obama knocks off another tin-horn dictator and meanwhile the Middle East is radicalizing and Iran and Syria are still thumbing their noses at us.


----------



## mudwhistle

Nevermind the 30,000 Surface to Air shoulder fired missiles Libya had that are now missing because we had no boots on the ground.


----------



## Photonic

mudwhistle said:


> So Obama knocks off another tin-horn dictator and meanwhile the Middle East is radicalizing and Iran and Syria are still thumbing their noses at us.



Let them thumb their noses at us, they have admitted that we would crush them if it came to military action.


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraqis were rising up against Saddam.
> 
> Like back when Bush 1 promised to help them if they did and then didn't follow through.
> 
> When we invaded, Iraqis were happy enough with their dictator.



I'm sure the hundreds of thousands he murdered and put in mass graves adored his ass.


----------



## Dr.Drock

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.



Kudos to you NYC, you're the only democrat I know of on this board who isn't a hypocrite towards warmongering.  You're against in in all instances from what I've seen.



Very rare to find that principle anymore.


----------



## HUGGY

*Why Is Libya Acceptable But Not Iraq?*

The Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 Over Lockerbie, Scotland

Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JRK

U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News


----------



## The T

mudwhistle said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> America did not invade Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's better to bomb them from the air and not clean up the mess.
> 
> That's much more civil.
Click to expand...

 
Indeed...from today:


*U.S. Predator Drone Fired on Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says*




> The official said the drone and French jet fired on a "large convoy" leaving Qaddafi's hometown of Sirte. A French defense official earlier said about 80 vehicles were in the convoy -- the official said the strike did not destroy the convoy but that fighters on the ground afterward intercepted the vehicle carrying Qaddafi.


----------



## High_Gravity

JRK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference?
> We started this mess, now just leave it?
> That is not what leadership demands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi before we did anything, so we did not "start this mess", please tell me you see the difference between us invading Iraq and this Libyan conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your telling me the exact bombing that took out Qaddafi's defenses before the Libyan people rose up had nothing to do with starting this mess?
> You allow Qaddafi to have the tools he had before we pounded it into sand, there is no up rise
> Look Qaddafi was an evil man, my issue with you Libs lied about Iraq and GWB until people actually believed it, now nothing, not a peep
> and with IRAQ it was all out n the open, this mess was 100% ours, we own, we caused, we supported and congress ( the representatives of the people) never had a say in it. That is not Obama's military
Click to expand...


Are you telling me we bombed Libya before the uprising started?


----------



## The T

mudwhistle said:


> So Obama knocks off another tin-horn dictator and meanwhile the Middle East is radicalizing and_* Iran*_ and Syria are still thumbing their noses at us.


And the *former* plotting asassinations within _our borders..._


----------



## mudwhistle

Photonic said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Obama knocks off another tin-horn dictator and meanwhile the Middle East is radicalizing and Iran and Syria are still thumbing their noses at us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let them thumb their noses at us, they have admitted that we would crush them if it came to military action.
Click to expand...


It doesn't stop them from planning or assisting terrorist attacks in the US like the plot Obama announced last week.


----------



## JRK

high_gravity said:


> jrk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> high_gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> the libyan people rose up against gaddafi before we did anything, so we did not "start this mess", please tell me you see the difference between us invading iraq and this libyan conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your telling me the exact bombing that took out qaddafi's defenses before the libyan people rose up had nothing to do with starting this mess?
> You allow qaddafi to have the tools he had before we pounded it into sand, there is no up rise
> look qaddafi was an evil man, my issue with you libs lied about iraq and gwb until people actually believed it, now nothing, not a peep
> and with iraq it was all out n the open, this mess was 100% ours, we own, we caused, we supported and congress ( the representatives of the people) never had a say in it. That is not obama's military
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you telling me we bombed libya before the uprising started?
Click to expand...


today
we killed qaddafi it looks like
read the link


----------



## High_Gravity

JRK said:


> high_gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jrk said:
> 
> 
> 
> your telling me the exact bombing that took out qaddafi's defenses before the libyan people rose up had nothing to do with starting this mess?
> You allow qaddafi to have the tools he had before we pounded it into sand, there is no up rise
> look qaddafi was an evil man, my issue with you libs lied about iraq and gwb until people actually believed it, now nothing, not a peep
> and with iraq it was all out n the open, this mess was 100% ours, we own, we caused, we supported and congress ( the representatives of the people) never had a say in it. That is not obama's military
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you telling me we bombed libya before the uprising started?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> today
> we killed qaddafi it looks like
> read the link
Click to expand...


It appears a NATO bomb did take him out, but it looks like he may have been barely alive in the pics, I have a feeling the rebels polished him off.


----------



## Photonic

mudwhistle said:


> Photonic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Obama knocks off another tin-horn dictator and meanwhile the Middle East is radicalizing and Iran and Syria are still thumbing their noses at us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let them thumb their noses at us, they have admitted that we would crush them if it came to military action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't stop them from planning or assisting terrorist attacks in the US like the plot Obama announced last week.
Click to expand...


Ghadafi thumbed his noses at us and screamed a 100 years of war against us.

Look where that got him.


----------



## Ravi

mudwhistle said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraqis were rising up against Saddam.
> 
> Like back when Bush 1 promised to help them if they did and then didn't follow through.
> 
> When we invaded, Iraqis were happy enough with their dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the hundreds of thousands he murdered and put in mass graves adored his ass.
Click to expand...

If they existed....the current population under Saddam didn't seem to care that much.

Sorry you didn't like the answer.


----------



## JRK

High_Gravity said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> high_gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you telling me we bombed libya before the uprising started?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> today
> we killed qaddafi it looks like
> read the link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears a NATO bomb did take him out, but it looks like he may have been barely alive in the pics, I have a feeling the rebels polished him off.
Click to expand...

*
URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone*, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News


----------



## Samson

JRK said:


> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News






> A U.S. Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Muammar Qaddafi's convoy Thursday in the moments before his death, a U.S. defense official told Fox News.
> 
> The official said the drone, _along with a French fighter jet_, fired on the "large convoy" leaving Qaddafi's hometown of Sirte.





So, lemme get this straight: A Frech Fighter Jet needed help from an American drone.



WTF do they arm those French Fighter Jets with? Slingshots?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Samson said:


> So, lemme get this straight: A Frech Fighter Jet needed help from an American drone.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do they arm those French Fighter Jets with? Slingshots?



White flags!

It's French.


----------



## High_Gravity

Samson said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A U.S. Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Muammar Qaddafi's convoy Thursday in the moments before his death, a U.S. defense official told Fox News.
> 
> The official said the drone, _along with a French fighter jet_, fired on the "large convoy" leaving Qaddafi's hometown of Sirte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, lemme get this straight: A Frech Fighter Jet needed help from an American drone.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do they arm those French Fighter Jets with? Slingshots?
Click to expand...


Dildoes.


----------



## Trajan

High_Gravity said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows, I'm just glad it won't be thousands of American troops fighting for their lives on the streets of Tripoli trying to fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference?
> We started this mess, now just leave it?
> That is not what leadership demands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi before we did anything, so we did not "start this mess", please tell me you see the difference between us invading Iraq and this Libyan conflict.
Click to expand...


Well, I&#8217;d say its no where near that simple HG, they rose up because nato, namely france and italy encouraged them too. 
Remember just 3-4 months ago the rebels had their backs to Misrata, ready to take it up the bunghole. And previously this kind of factional unrest brewed up every 5 years or so&#8230;&#8230;so why now? 

I am just trying to square all that with the fact that there does not appear to be any outrage  with the US&#8217;s abetment in  arming financing and sppting an armed rebellion and consequent assassination , oh wait, street execution, of another head of state whom we had made a good faith bargain and officially forgiven upon receipt of recompense. 

We had Carter and subsequent presidents totally restrict the CIA&#8217;s  role for instance in fomenting insurrections, assassinations, executions etc. We were excoriated for Afghanistan, Iraq- Saddam being a very bad guy  was not a reason I wanted to here for the invasion, and carried exactly zero weight among the media and  anyone even slightly to the left, maybe its because we sent troops, but  in the end, morally that&#8217;s just a statistic that has no bearing on the ethical issues&#8230;*shrugs*


----------



## mudwhistle

HUGGY said:


> *Why Is Libya Acceptable But Not Iraq?*
> 
> The Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 Over Lockerbie, Scotland
> 
> Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Saddam paid $25k to the families of any suicide-bombers in Israel 
He set hundreds of oil wells on fire causing a ecological disaster
He released millions of barrels of raw crude into the Persian Gulf
His sons regularly drove through the streets looking for new rape victims 
Iraq specialized in various forms of extremely brutal torture
Saddam invaded Kuwait raping and pillaging that tiny country on a biblical scale

Compared to Saddam, Qaddafi was a sweetheart


----------



## USArmyRetired

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKrERWBg3g0&feature=player_embedded]RAW, Libya Gaddafi just seconds before the rebels kill him and put him on the truck - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Moonglow

mudwhistle said:


> In their own words the left claims neither was a direct threat, so why is Obama pounding his chest over a mission he washed his hands of yet now he wants a victory lap,  considering  he saw fit to be highly critical of another(Iraq)?
> 
> I just want to hear Obama supporters opinions.



We did not march in and occupy Lybia. We did it with internal and external support, it was a real coalition, not just another USA and GB enterprise


----------



## Katzndogz

High_Gravity said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows, I'm just glad it won't be thousands of American troops fighting for their lives on the streets of Tripoli trying to fix it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference?
> We started this mess, now just leave it?
> That is not what leadership demands
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi before we did anything, so we did not "start this mess", please tell me you see the difference between us invading Iraq and this Libyan conflict.
Click to expand...


The Libyan people!  HAH.  They could care less.  It was started by Al Quaeda and the muslim brotherhood.   We had no hand in starting this mess.  If anyone had a hand in starting the mess it was the British, French and Italians.  

Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep

This is not going to end well at all.  This is only the beginning.   If obama tries to claim any credit for this at all, whatsoever, it is going to come back and rip what's left of his ass off.


----------



## The T

Moonglow said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In their own words the left claims neither was a direct threat, so why is Obama pounding his chest over a mission he washed his hands of yet now he wants a victory lap, considering he saw fit to be highly critical of another(Iraq)?
> 
> I just want to hear Obama supporters opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We did not march in and occupy Lybia. We did it with internal and external support, it was a real coalition, not just another USA and GB enterprise
Click to expand...

There were more involved than us and Great Britain oaf...And to boot? Congress _authorized it._


----------



## JRK

Samson said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A U.S. Predator drone was involved in the airstrike on Muammar Qaddafi's convoy Thursday in the moments before his death, a U.S. defense official told Fox News.
> 
> The official said the drone, _along with a French fighter jet_, fired on the "large convoy" leaving Qaddafi's hometown of Sirte.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, lemme get this straight: A Frech Fighter Jet needed help from an American drone.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF do they arm those French Fighter Jets with? Slingshots?
Click to expand...


Dude you got an issue with the truth you need to take it up with the source
I got a real issue with using U.S. tax payer funded military equipment to kill people with no deceleration of war. like in IRAQ
You libs kill me, for 8 years all I have heard is Bush lied and people died, well Obama has not said a word and people are dying, and your okay with that


----------



## freedombecki

paulitician said:


> Pretty gruesome stuff. I don't see anything to celebrate here. Our new puppets could be even more brutal than Ghaddafi. So excuse me if i don't jump for joy.



270 people killed by the Libyan explosion of Pan Am Flight 103, which also destroyed 21 homes in Lockerbie Scotland weren't very joyful either in the aftermath of the December 21, 1988, disaster ordered by Gadhafi as he admitted in 2003. Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Hope that helps you live with this. This particular removal should have taken place years ago, and not allowed to go on for almost a quarter of a century.

From link: 





> Wreckage was strewn over 50 square miles. Twenty-one of Lockerbie's  houses were completely destroyed and eleven of its residents were dead.  Thus, the total death toll was 270 (the 259 aboard the plane plus the 11  on the ground).


----------



## Trajan

JRK said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> today
> we killed qaddafi it looks like
> read the link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears a NATO bomb did take him out, but it looks like he may have been barely alive in the pics, I have a feeling the rebels polished him off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone*, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy' &#8212; part of which is shown here &#8212; said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News
Click to expand...


that was some munitions they were using...a shot to the left temple from a J-dam? don't think so....they shot him in the street man.







whole series of pics...here;

Libya live - Telegraph


----------



## Baruch Menachem

Interesting video from the Telegraph of Qdaffi's capture.   He was hurt, but ambulatory.    The pictures of him dead show a great deal more perforation than is evident here.  

Without his secret police and his armed guards he doesn't look so tough.    His enemies were really glad to catch him.   

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INTN3WD9osA&feature=feedu"]Somehow, I can't feel much pity for him. [/ame]


----------



## High_Gravity

Tipsycatlover said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference?
> We started this mess, now just leave it?
> That is not what leadership demands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi before we did anything, so we did not "start this mess", please tell me you see the difference between us invading Iraq and this Libyan conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Libyan people!  HAH.  They could care less.  It was started by Al Quaeda and the muslim brotherhood.   We had no hand in starting this mess.  If anyone had a hand in starting the mess it was the British, French and Italians.
> 
> Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep
> 
> This is not going to end well at all.  This is only the beginning.   If obama tries to claim any credit for this at all, whatsoever, it is going to come back and rip what's left of his ass off.
Click to expand...


So all the rebels are Al Qaeda terrorists? are you employed by the Gaddafi regime? those were Libyans that rose up against Gaddafi and killed him, get the fuck over it.


----------



## JRK

Trajan said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears a NATO bomb did take him out, but it looks like he may have been barely alive in the pics, I have a feeling the rebels polished him off.
> 
> 
> 
> *
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone*, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that was some munitions they were using...a shot to the left temple from a J-dam? don't think so....they shot him in the street man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whole series of pics...here;
> 
> Libya live - Telegraph
Click to expand...


After a drone attacked his convoy
URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News


----------



## High_Gravity

Trajan said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the difference?
> We started this mess, now just leave it?
> That is not what leadership demands
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi before we did anything, so we did not "start this mess", please tell me you see the difference between us invading Iraq and this Libyan conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, Id say its no where near that simple HG, they rose up because nato, namely france and italy encouraged them too.
> Remember just 3-4 months ago the rebels had their backs to Misrata, ready to take it up the bunghole. And previously this kind of factional unrest brewed up every 5 years or soso why now?
> 
> I am just trying to square all that with the fact that there does not appear to be any outrage  with the USs abetment in  arming financing and sppting an armed rebellion and consequent assassination , oh wait, street execution, of another head of state whom we had made a good faith bargain and officially forgiven upon receipt of recompense.
> 
> We had Carter and subsequent presidents totally restrict the CIAs  role for instance in fomenting insurrections, assassinations, executions etc. We were excoriated for Afghanistan, Iraq- Saddam being a very bad guy  was not a reason I wanted to here for the invasion, and carried exactly zero weight among the media and  anyone even slightly to the left, maybe its because we sent troops, but  in the end, morally thats just a statistic that has no bearing on the ethical issues*shrugs*
Click to expand...


Don't get me wrong I know we helped in all this but pretty much all the work on the ground has been done by Libyans and this uprising was started initially by the Libyan people, they didn't start a revolt because President Obama asked them to. I was against us getting involved in this from the start if you read my old posts but we are where we are, hopefully the Libyans will do the right thing.


----------



## JRK

High_Gravity said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Libyan people rose up against Gaddafi before we did anything, so we did not "start this mess", please tell me you see the difference between us invading Iraq and this Libyan conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Libyan people!  HAH.  They could care less.  It was started by Al Quaeda and the muslim brotherhood.   We had no hand in starting this mess.  If anyone had a hand in starting the mess it was the British, French and Italians.
> 
> Connections Between Al Qaeda And Libyan Rebels Run Deep
> 
> This is not going to end well at all.  This is only the beginning.   If obama tries to claim any credit for this at all, whatsoever, it is going to come back and rip what's left of his ass off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all the rebels are Al Qaeda terrorists? are you employed by the Gaddafi regime? those were Libyans that rose up against Gaddafi and killed him, get the fuck over it.
Click to expand...


So whats your opinion on Iraq? Obama used a drone to stop this convoy that allowed Qaddafi to be killed
We declared war on Iraq with congress, I have no idea what we have done hear


----------



## Rocko

Another example of American exceptionalism. We handle things in a civilized and humane way, generally speaking.

I'm not saying Gaddafi deserved more, but these people behaved like savages.


----------



## JRK

Barry44sucks said:


> Another example of American exceptionalism. We handle things in a civilized and humane way, generally speaking.
> 
> I'm not saying Gaddafi deserved more, but these people behaved like savages.



How far outside of the law is where my issue is. We used American made, guided, flown, built, serviced, and touched by american troop equipment to win this war and to kill Qaddafi. we have not once went to congress about any of this and now today we murdered the leader of a foreign country we have not ever declared why were doing it to start with, much less declared war

this is so far out-side the boundaries of our constitution I don't know where to start


----------



## freedombecki

JRK said:


> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of American exceptionalism. We handle things in a civilized and humane way, generally speaking.
> 
> I'm not saying Gaddafi deserved more, but these people behaved like savages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How far outside of the law is where my issue is. We used American made, guided, flown, built, serviced, and touched by american troop equipment to win this war and to kill Qaddafi. we have not once went to congress about any of this and now today we murdered the leader of a foreign country we have not ever declared why were doing it to start with, much less declared war
> 
> this is so far out-side the boundaries of our constitution I don't know where to start
Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to judge. Don't you remember the day when an American jetliner exploded over Lockerbie Scotland, killing everybody aboard plus 11 Lockerbie residents who died as plane parts hurled to the earth?

The evidence pointed at Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, which at first he denied, and he himself confirmed it in a speech in 2003.

Moammar Gadhafi was a mass murderer of innocent civilians, 159 of whom were Americans. Here's the link, one more time, JRK.


----------



## Katzndogz

freedombecki said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of American exceptionalism. We handle things in a civilized and humane way, generally speaking.
> 
> I'm not saying Gaddafi deserved more, but these people behaved like savages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How far outside of the law is where my issue is. We used American made, guided, flown, built, serviced, and touched by american troop equipment to win this war and to kill Qaddafi. we have not once went to congress about any of this and now today we murdered the leader of a foreign country we have not ever declared why were doing it to start with, much less declared war
> 
> this is so far out-side the boundaries of our constitution I don't know where to start
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be so quick to judge. Don't you remember the day when an American jetliner exploded over Lockerbie Scotland, killing everybody aboard plus 11 Lockerbie residents who died as plane parts hurled to the earth?
> 
> The evidence pointed at Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, which at first he denied, and he himself confirmed it in a speech in 2003.
> 
> Moammar Gadhafi was a mass murderer of innocent civilians, 159 of whom were Americans. Here's the link, one more time, JRK.
Click to expand...


When Gadaffi asked for clemency for the very man who did the Lockerbie bombing, obama was very happy to go to Scotland and ask that the bomber be released.


----------



## High_Gravity

Tipsycatlover said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far outside of the law is where my issue is. We used American made, guided, flown, built, serviced, and touched by american troop equipment to win this war and to kill Qaddafi. we have not once went to congress about any of this and now today we murdered the leader of a foreign country we have not ever declared why were doing it to start with, much less declared war
> 
> this is so far out-side the boundaries of our constitution I don't know where to start
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so quick to judge. Don't you remember the day when an American jetliner exploded over Lockerbie Scotland, killing everybody aboard plus 11 Lockerbie residents who died as plane parts hurled to the earth?
> 
> The evidence pointed at Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, which at first he denied, and he himself confirmed it in a speech in 2003.
> 
> Moammar Gadhafi was a mass murderer of innocent civilians, 159 of whom were Americans. Here's the link, one more time, JRK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Gadaffi asked for clemency for the very man who did the Lockerbie bombing, obama was very happy to go to Scotland and ask that the bomber be released.
Click to expand...


You are making this bullshit up, which is par for the course for you.


----------



## mudwhistle

Ravi said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraqis were rising up against Saddam.
> 
> Like back when Bush 1 promised to help them if they did and then didn't follow through.
> 
> When we invaded, Iraqis were happy enough with their dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the hundreds of thousands he murdered and put in mass graves adored his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they existed....the current population under Saddam didn't seem to care that much.
> 
> Sorry you didn't like the answer.
Click to expand...


Or never heard it. 

Saddam murdered Shiites and Kurds by the thousands. 

He forced thousands of conscripted Shiites into defending the birm going into Kuwait. Most of them gave up immedietly when our troops rushed in. Only his Republican Guard put up any kind of a fight. 

I can see also how easy it is to control the people when you have press that slobbers all over you. Reasonable people will accept just about anything if all they hear is one side of the story.


----------



## JRK

freedombecki said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barry44sucks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another example of American exceptionalism. We handle things in a civilized and humane way, generally speaking.
> 
> I'm not saying Gaddafi deserved more, but these people behaved like savages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How far outside of the law is where my issue is. We used American made, guided, flown, built, serviced, and touched by american troop equipment to win this war and to kill Qaddafi. we have not once went to congress about any of this and now today we murdered the leader of a foreign country we have not ever declared why were doing it to start with, much less declared war
> 
> this is so far out-side the boundaries of our constitution I don't know where to start
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be so quick to judge. Don't you remember the day when an American jetliner exploded over Lockerbie Scotland, killing everybody aboard plus 11 Lockerbie residents who died as plane parts hurled to the earth?
> 
> The evidence pointed at Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, which at first he denied, and he himself confirmed it in a speech in 2003.
> 
> Moammar Gadhafi was a mass murderer of innocent civilians, 159 of whom were Americans. Here's the link, one more time, JRK.
Click to expand...


So we are suppose to ignore our constitution? and how many innocent civilians had Saddam killed? we did that one per the constitution
Obama is not a fucking dictator bud, that military he plays god with is mine and yours and the people who represent us has had no say in this


----------



## uscitizen

NoNukes said:


> America did not invade Libya.



Well yes there is that, but neither one is/was acceptable to me.

I could ask the reverse of the right.  why is Iraq ok but not Libya?

btw I am not an Obama supporter.


----------



## freedombecki

Gaddafi Ordered Lockerbie Bombing



> Jalil said that Abdelbaser Ali Mohamed Al-Megrahi was personally ordered  to carry out the bombing, and that Gaddafi wanted Al-Megrahi released  from prison not for humanitarian reasons, but to be sure that Al-Megrahi  would not divulge Gaddafi's involvement.



Gadhafi didn't give 270 civilian human beings flying in a plane trial when he ordered a bomb be planted on their airplane. He ordered their mass murder, and he ordered a lot more American murders too.

Not only that, but he claimed his adopted daughter was killed when Reagan sent a missile to his living quarters. Christiana Amanpour just announced on television today that his alleged dead daughter was alive and well, was never killed like he lyingly claimed to take the onus off of *his* criminal assassination of innocent civilians.


​


----------



## freedombecki

Tipsycatlover said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far outside of the law is where my issue is. We used American made, guided, flown, built, serviced, and touched by american troop equipment to win this war and to kill Qaddafi. we have not once went to congress about any of this and now today we murdered the leader of a foreign country we have not ever declared why were doing it to start with, much less declared war
> 
> this is so far out-side the boundaries of our constitution I don't know where to start
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so quick to judge. Don't you remember the day when an American jetliner exploded over Lockerbie Scotland, killing everybody aboard plus 11 Lockerbie residents who died as plane parts hurled to the earth?
> 
> The evidence pointed at Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, which at first he denied, and he himself confirmed it in a speech in 2003.
> 
> Moammar Gadhafi was a mass murderer of innocent civilians, 159 of whom were Americans. Here's the link, one more time, JRK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Gadaffi asked for clemency for the very man who did the Lockerbie bombing, obama was very happy to go to Scotland and ask that the bomber be released.
Click to expand...

Tipsycatlover, I didn't read that anywhere. Do you have a link to this story? I do remember the assassin getting off, then shown a few months later fully healed of his alleged cancer, which didn't please me much, considering the Scottish courts said he was dying.


----------



## JRK

freedombecki said:


> Gaddafi Ordered Lockerbie Bombing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jalil said that Abdelbaser Ali Mohamed Al-Megrahi was personally ordered  to carry out the bombing, and that Gaddafi wanted Al-Megrahi released  from prison not for humanitarian reasons, but to be sure that Al-Megrahi  would not divulge Gaddafi's involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadhafi didn't give 270 civilian human beings flying in a plane trial when he ordered a bomb be planted on their airplane. He ordered their mass murder, and he ordered a lot more American murders too.
> 
> Not only that, but he claimed his adopted daughter was killed when Reagan sent a missile to his living quarters. Christiana Amanpour just announced on television today that his alleged dead daughter was alive and well, was never killed like he lyingly claimed to take the onus off of *his* criminal assassination of innocent civilians.
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...


My issue is with by passing the constitution. Obama has no more business using our military like he is doing than you do


----------



## healthmyths

You wrote"Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president."

Logical rational sane people went before Congress got approval and had consensus.. even Harry Reid's OWN words:

"*We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."*

Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
Addressing the US Senate
October 9, 2002
Congressional Record, p. S10145


----------



## freedombecki

JRK said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> How far outside of the law is where my issue is. We used American made, guided, flown, built, serviced, and touched by american troop equipment to win this war and to kill Qaddafi. we have not once went to congress about any of this and now today we murdered the leader of a foreign country we have not ever declared why were doing it to start with, much less declared war
> 
> this is so far out-side the boundaries of our constitution I don't know where to start
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so quick to judge. Don't you remember the day when an American jetliner exploded over Lockerbie Scotland, killing everybody aboard plus 11 Lockerbie residents who died as plane parts hurled to the earth?
> 
> The evidence pointed at Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, which at first he denied, and he himself confirmed it in a speech in 2003.
> 
> Moammar Gadhafi was a mass murderer of innocent civilians, 159 of whom were Americans. Here's the link, one more time, JRK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we are suppose to ignore our constitution? and how many innocent civilians had Saddam killed? we did that one per the constitution
> Obama is not a fucking dictator bud, that military he plays god with is mine and yours and the people who represent us has had no say in this
Click to expand...

Gadhafi's takeout of the Pan Am Flight 103 was an act of war, JRK. We had the rumor in 2003 he'd told people he ordered it, then in 2010, his minister said he ordered it. Our military acted in compliance with (1) significant evidence that indeed, Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which is an act of war, and it is a heinous act of war to take out a military plan against civilians, knowing full well they are a civilian and not a military power. NATO believed it also.

If Obama's generals convinced him the Libyan strongman indeed inflicted an act of war against innocent American civilians, and they showed certain documentation, he'd be within his constitutional duty to provide for the common defense against such a heinous predator.


----------



## uscitizen

healthmyths said:


> You wrote"Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president."
> 
> Logical rational sane people went before Congress got approval and had consensus.. even Harry Reid's OWN words:
> 
> "*We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."*
> 
> Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)
> Addressing the US Senate
> October 9, 2002
> Congressional Record, p. S10145



Yeah many hoodwinked scared dems were for invading Iraq, but that has nothing at all to do with the statement "Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president."

Can you answer/explain that ?

The right was far more universally for the invasion of Iraq than the left was.


----------



## freedombecki

JRK said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gaddafi Ordered Lockerbie Bombing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jalil said that Abdelbaser Ali Mohamed Al-Megrahi was personally ordered  to carry out the bombing, and that Gaddafi wanted Al-Megrahi released  from prison not for humanitarian reasons, but to be sure that Al-Megrahi  would not divulge Gaddafi's involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> Gadhafi didn't give 270 civilian human beings flying in a plane trial when he ordered a bomb be planted on their airplane. He ordered their mass murder, and he ordered a lot more American murders too.
> 
> Not only that, but he claimed his adopted daughter was killed when Reagan sent a missile to his living quarters. Christiana Amanpour just announced on television today that his alleged dead daughter was alive and well, was never killed like he lyingly claimed to take the onus off of *his* criminal assassination of innocent civilians.
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My issue is with by passing the constitution. Obama has no more business using our military like he is doing than you do
Click to expand...

Obama's constitutional duty is to provide for the common defense. 

He did so.


----------



## JRK

freedombecki said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be so quick to judge. Don't you remember the day when an American jetliner exploded over Lockerbie Scotland, killing everybody aboard plus 11 Lockerbie residents who died as plane parts hurled to the earth?
> 
> The evidence pointed at Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, which at first he denied, and he himself confirmed it in a speech in 2003.
> 
> Moammar Gadhafi was a mass murderer of innocent civilians, 159 of whom were Americans. Here's the link, one more time, JRK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we are suppose to ignore our constitution? and how many innocent civilians had Saddam killed? we did that one per the constitution
> Obama is not a fucking dictator bud, that military he plays god with is mine and yours and the people who represent us has had no say in this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gadhafi's takeout of the Pan Am Flight 103 was an act of war, JRK. We had the rumor in 2003 he'd told people he ordered it, then in 2010, his minister said he ordered it. Our military acted in compliance with (1) significant evidence that indeed, Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which is an act of war, and it is a heinous act of war to take out a military plan against civilians, knowing full well they are a civilian and not a military power. NATO believed it also.
> 
> If Obama's generals convinced him the Libyan strongman indeed inflicted an act of war against innocent American civilians, and they showed certain documentation, he'd be within his constitutional duty to provide for the common defense against such a heinous predator.
Click to expand...


This scares me more than any event going on in our country today
fuck the constitution
Dude there is not words as to how far over the line this event is. Obama is not god. GWB waited 18 months to invade Iraq for this very reason


----------



## bripat9643

NoNukes said:


> America did not invade Libya.



We bombed the crap out of it, nimrod.    Only the clinically retarded would believe that not sending ground troops in makes any kind of ethical difference.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.



And visa-versa for hypocritical leftwing turds like you.

End of story.


----------



## Old Rocks

mudwhistle said:


> In their own words the left claims neither was a direct threat, so why is Obama pounding his chest over a mission he washed his hands of yet now he wants a victory lap,  considering  he saw fit to be highly critical of another(Iraq)?
> 
> I just want to hear Obama supporters opinions.



Dumb fuck. The Libyans did the fighting, we just helped to even the fight. The Libyans will determine Libya's future, we will not be in hock to the tune of 3 trillion for Libya like in Iraq. And Gaddafi had American blood on his hands. Justice long delayed.


----------



## JRK

No question
He is not god and that military equipment is not his to do with as he damn well pleases
right, wrong i do not care
GWB waited 18 months to rid the world of Saddam, no short cuts where taken and you Libs dogged him for 8 years
now this and he is hero?

It is so far outside the constitution, we shall see


merging with your EXISTING thread


----------



## bripat9643

Ravi said:


> Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraqis were rising up against Saddam.
> 
> Like back when Bush 1 promised to help them if they did and then didn't follow through.
> 
> When we invaded, Iraqis were happy enough with their dictator.



Your post has just been nominated for _10 Dumbest Posts of all Time_ list.

Congratulations!


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> America did not invade Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We bombed the crap out of it, nimrod.    Only the clinically retarded would believe that not sending ground troops in makes any kind of ethical difference.
Click to expand...


Dumbass Pattycake. What we did was ethical. And cost less than two billion. Hell, in Iraq, Halliburton alone stole many times more than that by themselves.

Lockerbie, justice long delayed, finally done. Thank you, Libyan Rebels.


----------



## Salt Jones

I was in the military doing Iraq, I thought ans still think it was a waste. I work in the defense industry now and increased need for weapons pays my bills and feathers my retirement nest. I barely care about my fellow Americans and I really don't give a damn what happens to non-Americans. That's why Libya is acceptable and Iraq wasn't.


----------



## Rocko

HUGGY said:


> *Why Is Libya Acceptable But Not Iraq?*
> 
> The Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 Over Lockerbie, Scotland
> 
> Pan Am Flight 103 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



 how come none of you libs demanded any action until now?


----------



## freedombecki

JRK said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we are suppose to ignore our constitution? and how many innocent civilians had Saddam killed? we did that one per the constitution
> Obama is not a fucking dictator bud, that military he plays god with is mine and yours and the people who represent us has had no say in this
> 
> 
> 
> Gadhafi's takeout of the Pan Am Flight 103 was an act of war, JRK. We had the rumor in 2003 he'd told people he ordered it, then in 2010, his minister said he ordered it. Our military acted in compliance with (1) significant evidence that indeed, Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which is an act of war, and it is a heinous act of war to take out a military plan against civilians, knowing full well they are a civilian and not a military power. NATO believed it also.
> 
> If Obama's generals convinced him the Libyan strongman indeed inflicted an act of war against innocent American civilians, and they showed certain documentation, he'd be within his constitutional duty to provide for the common defense against such a heinous predator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This scares me more than any event going on in our country today
> fuck the constitution
> Dude there is not words as to how far over the line this event is. Obama is not god. GWB waited 18 months to invade Iraq for this very reason
Click to expand...

Hey, you need to read the Constitution. It says right there the President of the United States' duty is to provide for the common defense.

We had no proof until early last year (2010) that Moammar Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Gadhafi's own minister fessed up early in early 2010, and I'm certain he furnished irrefutable  documentation of the order or our military would never have called their findings to the attention of the Oval Office.

Seems to me, it is about the same amount of time (18 months or so) between receipt of proof of Gadhafi's involvement and today's event.

Your problem, sir, is not with me, it is with the United States Constitution that makes it plain a President's duty.


----------



## bripat9643

Ravi said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the hundreds of thousands he murdered and put in mass graves adored his ass.
> 
> 
> 
> If they existed....the current population under Saddam didn't seem to care that much.
> 
> Sorry you didn't like the answer.
Click to expand...



ROFL!  How would you know?  Did you interview them all?

I've seen and read tons of material about how the families of Saddam's victims feel him.   Your description doesn't come within 1000 miles of the mark.


----------



## The T

JRK said:


> No question
> He is not god and that military equipment is not his to do with as he damn well pleases
> right, wrong i do not care
> GWB waited 18 months to rid the world of Saddam, no short cuts where taken and you Libs dogged him for 8 years
> now this and he is hero?
> 
> It is so far outside the constitution, we shall see


Clinton used the same tactic when his creds were suffering...Clinton succeeded in bombing an _aspirin factory_ and killing a _janitor _that happened to be in the building as a _bonus..._


----------



## bripat9643

Moonglow said:


> We did not march in and occupy Lybia. We did it with internal and external support, it was a real coalition, not just another USA and GB enterprise



Another bullshit claim that doesn't hold up under inspection.


----------



## JRK

freedombecki said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gadhafi's takeout of the Pan Am Flight 103 was an act of war, JRK. We had the rumor in 2003 he'd told people he ordered it, then in 2010, his minister said he ordered it. Our military acted in compliance with (1) significant evidence that indeed, Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, which is an act of war, and it is a heinous act of war to take out a military plan against civilians, knowing full well they are a civilian and not a military power. NATO believed it also.
> 
> If Obama's generals convinced him the Libyan strongman indeed inflicted an act of war against innocent American civilians, and they showed certain documentation, he'd be within his constitutional duty to provide for the common defense against such a heinous predator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This scares me more than any event going on in our country today
> fuck the constitution
> Dude there is not words as to how far over the line this event is. Obama is not god. GWB waited 18 months to invade Iraq for this very reason
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, you need to read the Constitution. It says right there the President of the United States' duty is to provide for the common defense.
> 
> We had no proof until early last year (2010) that Moammar Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Gadhafi's own minister fessed up early in early 2010, and I'm certain he furnished irrefutable  documentation of the order or our military would never have called their findings to the attention of the Oval Office.
> 
> Seems to me, it is about the same amount of time (18 months or so) between receipt of proof of Gadhafi's involvement and today's event.
> 
> Your problem, sir, is not with me, it is with the United States Constitution that makes it plain a President's duty.
Click to expand...


I have no issue with you, I have an issue with any president who thinks he can go and do the things BHO is doing without a declaration of war. Bud your off base and you know it. It is not his place in life to attack a sovereign nation, especially its president without congress giving him the ok, if so GWB would not have waited 18 months to deal with saddam


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.



So?

Obama did assassinate Gadaffi and Osama bin Laden.  When you go to war with a country, the leader of that country is fair game.  That has always been the case.


----------



## JRK

bripat9643 said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> We did not march in and occupy Lybia. We did it with internal and external support, it was a real coalition, not just another USA and GB enterprise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another bullshit claim that doesn't hold up under inspection.
Click to expand...


support?
we had over 50 nations support us in Iraq, but you know who supported us the most in iraq?

THE US CONGRESS MOONGLOW
YOU THINK OBAMA IS GOD MOONGLOW?


----------



## bripat9643

kwc57 said:


> The difference is that American forces caught Saddam and had him in custody and could control what happened.  If Iraqi forces had caught him, he would have died on the spot too.




According to NYbeaner, the people of Iraq were indifferent about Saddam


----------



## JRK

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Obama did assassinate Gadaffi and Osama bin Laden.  When you go to war with a country, the leader of that country is fair game.  That has always been the case.
Click to expand...


We have no deceleration of war with Libya, that is THE issue


----------



## healthmyths

You wrote:Can you answer/explain that ?

The right was far more universally for the invasion of Iraq than the left was.
__________________

Geez how much more clear can it be?
Saddam signed 1991 CEASE FIRE are you aware of that?
That agreement stopped but didn't end the 1991 war!
Now I know this may be hard to understand but when Saddam signed 1991 agreement he AGREED that if any abrogation of the agreement occurred the conflict as REID said would resume!
That's what gave authority Saddam did when he broke the 1991 agreement and then Congress in 1998 and again in 2002 majority both times gave approval!
WHERE WAS THE SAME WITH Libya?

Tell me so I understand.. If you signed an agreement that called for cessation of conflict that YOU STARTED i.e. invaded Kuwait, and that agreement contained a clause that clearly stated YOU had to keep all the terms.. and then for 10 years you continued to break the agreement... do you not think you breaking the agreement provides authority to continue the conflict started BY you in 1991?
YOU being Saddam in case you don't get it!


----------



## California Girl

Old Rocks said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass, Gaddafi was responsible for Lockerby. He ordered the deaths of Americans. His death was well deserved.
> 
> Bush went after Hussien, and failed to get Bin Laden, who  was responsible for the deaths of 3000 Americans on American soil. Bush invaded Iraq on the basis of lies, and created a worse situation there than already existed.
Click to expand...


Those '3000 Americans' were not all Americans. 86 countries lost citizens in the WTC. Show some fucking respect to them.


----------



## bripat9643

Contumacious said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam got a trial, Qaddafi got a bullet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Saddam was Lynched - NO TRIAL.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Wrong.  He had a trial.  He wasn't lynched.


----------



## California Girl

JRK said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Obama did assassinate Gadaffi and Osama bin Laden.  When you go to war with a country, the leader of that country is fair game.  That has always been the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have no deceleration of war with Libya, that is THE issue
Click to expand...


We weren't 'at war' with Libya. We were part of a NATO action, sanctioned by the UN, to stop Gadaffi from slaughtering his own people.


----------



## bripat9643

freedombecki said:


> Obama's constitutional duty is to provide for the common defense.
> 
> He did so.



Libya had nothing to do with defending America.


----------



## freedombecki

JRK said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> This scares me more than any event going on in our country today
> fuck the constitution
> Dude there is not words as to how far over the line this event is. Obama is not god. GWB waited 18 months to invade Iraq for this very reason
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, you need to read the Constitution. It says right there the President of the United States' duty is to provide for the common defense.
> 
> We had no proof until early last year (2010) that Moammar Gadhafi ordered the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Gadhafi's own minister fessed up early in early 2010, and I'm certain he furnished irrefutable  documentation of the order or our military would never have called their findings to the attention of the Oval Office.
> 
> Seems to me, it is about the same amount of time (18 months or so) between receipt of proof of Gadhafi's involvement and today's event.
> 
> Your problem, sir, is not with me, it is with the United States Constitution that makes it plain a President's duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no issue with you, I have an issue with any president who thinks he can go and do the things BHO is doing without a declaration of war. Bud your off base and you know it. It is not his place in life to attack a sovereign nation, especially its president without congress giving him the ok, if so GWB would not have waited 18 months to deal with saddam
Click to expand...

No, I'm not off base. The Constitution is clear about who has the authority to provide for the common defense. That would be the President of the United States. The information was furnished in 2010, the White House warned citizens through the State Department about Libya. Obama himself said in a speech a few months ago that Moammar Gadhafi had to go, though I was so shocked after all these years it was hard to believe finally someone in America was gonna stand up to this serial killer of American citizens, and it takes just about 18 months from receipt and confirmation of hard evidence against a criminal conspirator against citizens of the United States, to execute the decision to remove the thread of an enemy of the people of the USA.

I'm telling you the 100% truth about the Constitution. It's not anybody else's job except the President's. This President doesn't do things your way, he does them his way.

The military saying is "lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way." You're not leading, you're not following, so get out of the way, dude.

You should be happy that finally, this president is catching on to his job description, and he's caught on pretty well after ridding the world of the World's Most Wanted Terrorist, Osama bin Laden, and now, he's ridded the world out of the guy who took his place as the World's Most Wanted Terrorist, Moammar Gadhafi.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> Dumbass Pattycake. What we did was ethical. And cost less than two billion. Hell, in Iraq, Halliburton alone stole many times more than that by themselves.



There's nothing ethical about it.  Libya was in no way a threat to the United States, and Obama did not get permission from Congress for his little adventure.  The cost of an action doesn't determine whether it's ethical.



Old Rocks said:


> Lockerbie, justice long delayed, finally done. Thank you, Libyan Rebels.



The U.S military does not exist for the purpose of revenge, especially for something that happened 30 years ago.

Your approval is determined solely by whether the person responsible has a (D) or an (R) after his name.  Like the rest of the leftwing turds in here, you're just a two-bit partisan hack.


----------



## The T

bripat9643 said:


> kwc57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that American forces caught Saddam and had him in custody and could control what happened. If Iraqi forces had caught him, he would have died on the spot too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to NYbeaner, the people of Iraq were indifferent about Saddam
Click to expand...

They feared him lest they wind up like the Kurds...

*Halabja, Iraq* <*WARNING: Graphic Images*


----------



## JRK

Every-one here misses the biggest point. It is not BHO place in life unless it is to protect this country from immanent attack to be using our military for anything without asking congress, this includes UN or NATO support
For $1 Billion, One Dictator - Kevin Baron - NationalJournal.com
we are not at war with Libya.This is not his private Army people. GWB spent 18 months before we invaded Iraq, if you think there is a difference in killing people with a Drone or a M-16, your not thinking then


----------



## Lovebears65

Old Rocks said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> In their own words the left claims neither was a direct threat, so why is Obama pounding his chest over a mission he washed his hands of yet now he wants a victory lap,  considering  he saw fit to be highly critical of another(Iraq)?
> 
> I just want to hear Obama supporters opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb fuck. The Libyans did the fighting, we just helped to even the fight. The Libyans will determine Libya's future, we will not be in hock to the tune of 3 trillion for Libya like in Iraq. And Gaddafi had American blood on his hands. Justice long delayed.
Click to expand...


You can make it what you want to make it but the truth is Obama  bombed Libya without Congress approval which is against the constitution . Bush got a by partisan with both Dems and Rep. both approving going into Iraq. Saddam Hussein was killing his own people just like  Qaddafi  doing the same to his people.  Because the left hated Bush they went after him like  crazy. Look at Rosie O'Donnell who counted each and every  military personal  that got KIA but not one word  about the ones in Afghanistan.    And the money thing. Maybe Obama has not spent as much as Bush but he found to spend more money then Bush in his 3 years on social programs then Bush did his 8 years with 2 wars...


----------



## freedombecki

bripat9643 said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's constitutional duty is to provide for the common defense.
> 
> He did so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libya had nothing to do with defending America.
Click to expand...


Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, was proven to have issued the order to bomb Pan American Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 just last year. We knew he did it, but firm proof was not held by us until January of 2010 when one of Gadhafi's ministers furnished us with irrefutable proof. 179 Americans and citizens of 21 other countries were also killed at this order.

President Obama did his Constitutional Duty when he had certain and irrefutable proof of two of the worst 10 world's terrorists harming American citizens.

The Constitution is clear on who has the authority to provide for the common defense of American citizens, and that would fall to President Obama, his staff, and his military.


----------



## Salt Jones

JRK said:


> Every-one here misses the biggest point. It is not BHO place in life unless it is to protect this country from immanent attack to be using our military for anything without asking congress, this includes UN or NATO support
> For $1 Billion, One Dictator - Kevin Baron - NationalJournal.com
> we are not at war with Libya.This is not his private Army people. GWB spent 18 months before we invaded Iraq, if you think there is a difference in killing people with a Drone or a M-16, your not thinking then



With a drone the person pulling the trigger is in an air conditioned office in Idaho.


----------



## Photonic

Salt Jones said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every-one here misses the biggest point. It is not BHO place in life unless it is to protect this country from immanent attack to be using our military for anything without asking congress, this includes UN or NATO support
> For $1 Billion, One Dictator - Kevin Baron - NationalJournal.com
> we are not at war with Libya.This is not his private Army people. GWB spent 18 months before we invaded Iraq, if you think there is a difference in killing people with a Drone or a M-16, your not thinking then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With a drone the person pulling the trigger is in an air conditioned office in Idaho.
Click to expand...


Nevada, Sir.


----------



## JRK

freedombecki said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's constitutional duty is to provide for the common defense.
> 
> He did so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libya had nothing to do with defending America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, was proven to have issued the order to bomb Pan American Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 just last year. We knew he did it, but firm proof was not held by us until January of 2010 when one of Gadhafi's ministers furnished us with irrefutable proof. 179 Americans and citizens of 21 other countries were also killed at this order.
> 
> President Obama did his Constitutional Duty when he had certain and irrefutable proof of two of the worst 10 world's terrorists harming American citizens.
> 
> The Constitution is clear on who has the authority to provide for the common defense of American citizens, and that would fall to President Obama, his staff, and his military.
Click to expand...


So what your saying is Bush should have done the same thing with iraq? fuck the constitution and those who died defending it?
Take the hi road brother, Qaddafi did not go 30 years as a person who you defend Obama and what he done to have Obama decide to kill him, and what about Egypt?
And when is Obama going to explain to congress this is why he did this? or have you had this discussion with him?


----------



## freedombecki

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass Pattycake. What we did was ethical. And cost less than two billion. Hell, in Iraq, Halliburton alone stole many times more than that by themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing ethical about it.  Libya was in no way a threat to the United States, and Obama did not get permission from Congress for his little adventure.  The cost of an action doesn't determine whether it's ethical.
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lockerbie, justice long delayed, finally done. Thank you, Libyan Rebels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S military does not exist for the purpose of revenge, especially for something that happened 30 years ago.
> 
> Your approval is determined solely by whether the person responsible has a (D) or an (R) after his name.  Like the rest of the leftwing turds in here, you're just a two-bit partisan hack.
Click to expand...

The trouble with mentally ill dictators who issue orders to harm civilians is that someday, someone furnishes full proof of their involvement. I'm certain that's the case.

Mentally ill people in power who order civilian assassinations either need to be removed by their own people or by whoever lost civilians to such an assassin.

Libya was an ongoing threat with Moammar Gadhafi as its leader who was trying to protect himself from prosecution for masterminding civilian American deaths. The irrefutable proof took a long time in coming--21 years, to be exact, and now, 23 years later, it's over with Gadhafi's death. He can't order any more American civilian deaths when his meds wear off.


----------



## JRK

freedombecki said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass Pattycake. What we did was ethical. And cost less than two billion. Hell, in Iraq, Halliburton alone stole many times more than that by themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing ethical about it.  Libya was in no way a threat to the United States, and Obama did not get permission from Congress for his little adventure.  The cost of an action doesn't determine whether it's ethical.
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lockerbie, justice long delayed, finally done. Thank you, Libyan Rebels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S military does not exist for the purpose of revenge, especially for something that happened 30 years ago.
> 
> Your approval is determined solely by whether the person responsible has a (D) or an (R) after his name.  Like the rest of the leftwing turds in here, you're just a two-bit partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The trouble with mentally ill dictators who issue orders to harm civilians is that someday, someone furnishes full proof of their involvement. I'm certain that's the case.
> 
> Mentally ill people in power who order civilian assassinations either need to be removed by their own people or by whoever lost civilians to such an assassin.
> 
> Libya was an ongoing threat with Moammar Gadhafi as its leader who was trying to protect himself from prosecution for masterminding civilian American deaths. The irrefutable proof took a long time in coming--21 years, to be exact, and now, 23 years later, it's over with Gadhafi's death. He can't order any more American civilian deaths when his meds wear off.
Click to expand...


Who decides he is mentally ill? be careful or you will be next. This is about the U.S. constitution
nothing else. for the people, by the people


----------



## freedombecki

JRK said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libya had nothing to do with defending America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, was proven to have issued the order to bomb Pan American Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 just last year. We knew he did it, but firm proof was not held by us until January of 2010 when one of Gadhafi's ministers furnished us with irrefutable proof. 179 Americans and citizens of 21 other countries were also killed at this order.
> 
> President Obama did his Constitutional Duty when he had certain and irrefutable proof of two of the worst 10 world's terrorists harming American citizens.
> 
> The Constitution is clear on who has the authority to provide for the common defense of American citizens, and that would fall to President Obama, his staff, and his military.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what your saying is Bush should have done the same thing with iraq? fuck the constitution and those who died defending it?
> Take the hi road brother, Qaddafi did not go 30 years as a person who you defend Obama and what he done to have Obama decide to kill him, and what about Egypt?
> And when is Obama going to explain to congress this is why he did this? or have you had this discussion with him?
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying. Bush was not president in 2010. Obama is. Very early in 2010, Gadhafi's old minister came forward with proof Gadhafi had issued the order to take out Americans on Pan Am Flight 103 with a bomb of a plastic explosive called Semtex and was activated by a timer. The bomb was hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player. Parts of it were found in a wood 80 miles from Lockerbie by a man walking his dog who found a t-shirt containing some of the chips that helped investigators link it to the tragedy at Lockerbie. Most of the wreckage was found within a 50-mile parameter, it was a heinous explosion. When all the pieces of the puzzles came together, along with other intelligence, the stuff was traced to the 2 terrorists eventually convicted of the crime--11 years later. Firm proof of Gadhafi's order was obtained in 2010. Knowing someone did it and having irrefutable proof are completely different. Bush did not have the irrefutable proof, it came on Obama's watch.

Obama acted in accordance with his oath of office according to the Constitution, imho, in this instance.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bripat9643 said:


> Your post has just been nominated for _10 Dumbest Posts of all Time_ list.
> 
> Congratulations!



I'm betting the other 9 are split evenly between Ravi, Jillian and TruthMatters....


----------



## JRK

freedombecki said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libya's leader, Moammar Gadhafi, was proven to have issued the order to bomb Pan American Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 just last year. We knew he did it, but firm proof was not held by us until January of 2010 when one of Gadhafi's ministers furnished us with irrefutable proof. 179 Americans and citizens of 21 other countries were also killed at this order.
> 
> President Obama did his Constitutional Duty when he had certain and irrefutable proof of two of the worst 10 world's terrorists harming American citizens.
> 
> The Constitution is clear on who has the authority to provide for the common defense of American citizens, and that would fall to President Obama, his staff, and his military.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what your saying is Bush should have done the same thing with iraq? fuck the constitution and those who died defending it?
> Take the hi road brother, Qaddafi did not go 30 years as a person who you defend Obama and what he done to have Obama decide to kill him, and what about Egypt?
> And when is Obama going to explain to congress this is why he did this? or have you had this discussion with him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I'm saying. Bush was not president in 2010. Obama is. Very early in 2010, Gadhafi's old minister came forward with proof Gadhafi had issued the order to take out Americans on Pan Am Flight 103 with a bomb of a plastic explosive called Semtex and was activated by a timer. The bomb was hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player. Parts of it were found in a wood 80 miles from Lockerbie by a man walking his dog who found a t-shirt containing some of the chips that helped investigators link it to the tragedy at Lockerbie. Most of the wreckage was found within a 50-mile parameter, it was a heinous explosion. When all the pieces of the puzzles came together, along with other intelligence, the stuff was traced to the 2 terrorists eventually convicted of the crime--11 years later. Firm proof of Gadhafi's order was obtained in 2010. Knowing someone did it and having irrefutable proof are completely different. Bush did not have the irrefutable proof, it came on Obama's watch.
> 
> Obama acted in accordance with his oath of office according to the Constitution, imho, in this instance.
Click to expand...


GWB had proof beyond any irrefutable reason that Saddam had been lying, but he went to the US congress and told the american people why and what he was doing
Why?
Because that is what the constitution told him to do.


----------



## Mustang

JRK said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea i hear ya but i do think NATO's bombing and killing his Grandchildren should be thoroughly investigated. I believe that was a War Crime. Human Rights Watch should take the lead on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly who is the person or persons who you think should be prosecuted for war crimes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who gave the order to bomb the living hell out of them with no involvement from the US congress. Those are not Obama's jets, missiles and drones to do with what ever he wants to do
> There the american tax payers
Click to expand...

 
Got a pink slip?


----------



## California Girl

paulitician said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really interested in hearing what Leftist orgs like Human Rights Watch have to say about this. They have a long history of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt they can say anything, it was a war battle that gadafi was involved in, that got him killed...as others in these battles were killed by gadafi's people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea i hear ya but i do think NATO's bombing and killing his Grandchildren should be thoroughly investigated. I believe that was a War Crime. Human Rights Watch should take the lead on this.
Click to expand...


----------



## California Girl

bripat9643 said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> America did not invade Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We bombed the crap out of it, nimrod.    Only the clinically retarded would believe that not sending ground troops in makes any kind of ethical difference.
Click to expand...


Actually, we didn't... the Brits and the French did a lot of it. Admittedly, we helped.


----------



## Lakhota

Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.


----------



## California Girl

Lakhota said:


> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.



Yea, the Evil Bush Presidents picked on poor lil Saddam. They were so mean. And you are so stupid.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.



Nazi Boi, you are a complete retard.

Seriously.

{Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq. } - President Bill Clinton


----------



## mudwhistle

USArmyRetired said:


> I'm sure all the Jews will be gloating over this.
> 
> A Comprehensive History of Zionist Crimes
> 
> A Comprehensive History of Zionist Crimes
> 
> 
> Operation Trojan (Libya frame-up), 1986
> 
> In the Eighties, when Reagan was US President, Libya was frequently selected as the 'perpetrator' of Israel and the Mossad's various deceptions and terrorist acts. Whenever a Bush was in the White House, the crimes would be blamed on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Clinton, although something of a sleazeball, appears to have resisted some of his blackmailers' demands such as large-scale invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan. Hence, his trysts with Monica Lewinsky were publicized.
> 
> In April 1986, a bomb exploded in La Belle Discotheque in Berlin. Three were killed including two US soldiers, and over 200 injured. Ten days later, Ronald Reagan gave the order to bomb Libya. Around 37 people were killed including Colonel Gaddafi's adopted baby daughter, and over 200 wounded. This was the result of the Mossad's Operation Trojan - ....that conned some countries into believing Libya was actually behind terrorism such as the Berlin disco bombing. It is true that there was a territorial dispute between the US and Libya, following some provocative US naval manoeuvres in the Gulf of Sidra. But Libya was innocent of many of the terrorist crimes it was alleged to have committed.
> 
> Shimon Peres had given the order to launch Operation Trojan in February 1986. One of Israel's ships would broadcast misleading pre-recorded digital transmissions that could only be received by a Mossad device planted in Tripoli - the Trojan. The Trojan would retransmit a signal on a frequency known to be used for official Libyan business, ready to be received by the Americans or their allies. The source would appear to be emanating from such location as to appear genuine, and Western intelligence services would find that the Mossad also had confirmation that these series of "terrorist orders" were supposedly being broadcast to various Libyan embassies.


----------



## Lakhota

California Girl said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, the Evil Bush Presidents picked on poor lil Saddam. They were so mean. And you are so stupid.
Click to expand...


YES, they did.

Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?


----------



## freedombecki

Sallow said:


> Fair trial? Saddam got a kangaroo show trial followed by a farce and brutal execution. And it turns out Iraq was a war crime. Saddam surrendered. He should have gone to the Hague or at least gotten the Amin/Noriega treatment. Gaddafi was offered multiple outs. He chose to fight. Buh bye.



Saddam was tried in the oldest court system on this planet, and I watched some of the testimony as it was being interpreted into English on one of the television channels I watched. Saddam committed literally hundreds of war crimes and had his finger in every terrorist pie, and he directly rewarded jihad assassins double for killing Americans over what he paid out in rewards for their ilk who assassinated Israelis with homicide bombs. He compensated every alQaeda assassin who worked on taking out America's world trade center, and he bullied each and every neighbor on his border with plots to expropriate their most valuable oil fields or their most scenic seaports. I watched television the day Saddam was sentenced in the same court Mesopotamia has had for over 2,000 years, possibly back to the time of Hammurabi as well.

Didn't you have television service in your area broadcasting the trial the rest of the world watched?


----------



## Trajan

uscitizen said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> America did not invade Libya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes there is that, but neither one is/was acceptable to me.
> 
> I could ask the reverse of the right.  why is Iraq ok but not Libya?
> 
> btw I am not an Obama supporter.
Click to expand...


exactly, thats a question in reverse,  the president could answer.....*shrugs*


----------



## Uncensored2008

USArmyRetired said:


> I'm sure all the Jews will be gloating over this.



You know, suicide would not be considered a sin for you.

More like "community service."


----------



## Trajan

hummmm, just wondering; will the UN will lower its flag to half staff for Qaddafi?....


----------



## freedombecki

Lakhota said:


> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.


No he was not. Saddam tried to murder a United States President. He was not sentenced to death for that.

He was sentenced to death after a court of his nation heard the testimony of people related to people who were unmercifully tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein.

The trouble with Saddam Hussein was he wasn't content to watch people get tortured by his henchmen. He got in there and participated in the crimes.

You ought to have read Madeline Albright's several pages on the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein. They were detailed, they were exact, and they showed him for the criminal he was.

Don't you stand there and lie to the public about the criminal procedure that Saddam Hussein enjoyed. It's a hell of a lot more than the victims of his rape rooms got.

The Iraqis sentenced him to death, and the Iraqis executed him according to their laws, not ours.


----------



## The T

Lakhota said:


> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.


 Tell that to The people he murdered and _Kuwait_ he over ran to control thier resources...Good boy..._sit._


----------



## Lakhota

The T said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to The people he murdered and _Kuwait_ he over ran to control thier resources...Good boy..._sit._
Click to expand...


Saddam was baited into Kuwait.

Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?


----------



## mudwhistle

USArmyRetired said:


> RAW, Libya Gaddafi just seconds before the rebels kill him and put him on the truck - YouTube



The guy fell down some stairs.


----------



## Mr.Nick

JRK said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News.
> BREAKING NEWS
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News



Saddam was caught by US forces and turned over to the present Iraqi government..

Gaddafi was lynched by rebels..

I don't even know how you could give Gaddafi a trial considering those that lynched him were being attacked by his government...


----------



## The T

freedombecki said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.
> 
> 
> 
> No he was not. Saddam tried to murder a United States President. He was not sentenced to death for that.
> 
> He was sentenced to death after a court of his nation heard the testimony of people related to people who were unmercifully tortured and killed by Saddam Hussein.
> 
> The trouble with Saddam Hussein was he wasn't content to watch people get tortured by his henchmen. He got in there and participated in the crimes.
> 
> You ought to have read Madeline Albright's several pages on the War Crimes of Saddam Hussein. They were detailed, they were exact, and they showed him for the criminal he was.
> 
> Don't you stand there and lie to the public about the criminal procedure that Saddam Hussein enjoyed. It's a hell of a lot more than the victims of his rape rooms got.
> 
> The Iraqis sentenced him to death, and the Iraqis executed him according to their laws, not ours.
Click to expand...

 


 
​


----------



## mudwhistle

Lakhota said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to The people he murdered and _Kuwait_ he over ran to control thier resources...Good boy..._sit._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saddam was baited into Kuwait.
> 
> Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?
Click to expand...


Yup.....baited.

I was there twice. The place looked like Hiroshima.

He carried everything they had in trucks all the way to Baghdad.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Lakhota said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to The people he murdered and _Kuwait_ he over ran to control thier resources...Good boy..._sit._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saddam was baited into Kuwait.
> 
> Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?
Click to expand...




Saddam attacked Kuwait for supremacy reasons..

Then he set fire to their oil fields...

In geo-political terms Saddam was just an asshole sadistic lunatic...


----------



## freedombecki

Lakhota said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, the Evil Bush Presidents picked on poor lil Saddam. They were so mean. And you are so stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES, they did.
> 
> Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?
Click to expand...


No, "they" didn't.

Saddam Hussein set himself up with heinous war crimes against his own people and against every neighbor Iraq borders. He caused the deaths of over 1.5 million Arabs, many of whom were Iraqi citizens, and he used WOMDs against his own people. He didn't turn any new leaves, he just got cleverer about concealing his killings from the public at large.

But he didn't pull the wool over Secretary of State Madeline Albright's eyes, and he didn't pull the wool over Colin Powell's nor Condoleeza Rice's eyes either. His crimes and threats got worse, and they never got better.


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to The people he murdered and _Kuwait_ he over ran to control thier resources...Good boy..._sit._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was baited into Kuwait.
> 
> Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam attacked Kuwait for supremacy reasons..
> 
> Then he set fire to their oil fields...
> 
> In geo-political terms Saddam was just an asshole sadistic lunatic...
Click to expand...

That got off his leash...


----------



## Lakhota

freedombecki said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, the Evil Bush Presidents picked on poor lil Saddam. They were so mean. And you are so stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES, they did.
> 
> Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, "they" didn't.
> 
> Saddam Hussein set himself up with heinous war crimes against his own people and against every neighbor Iraq borders. He caused the deaths of over 1.5 million Arabs, many of whom were Iraqi citizens, and he used WOMDs against his own people. He didn't turn any new leaves, he just got cleverer about concealing his killings from the public at large.
> 
> But he didn't pull the wool over Secretary of State Madeline Albright's eyes, and he didn't pull the wool over Colin Powell's nor Condoleeza Rice's eyes either. His crimes and threats got worse, and they never got better.
Click to expand...


Yes, "they" DID.


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News.
> BREAKING NEWS
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was caught by US forces and turned over to the present Iraqi government..
> 
> Gaddafi was lynched by rebels..
> 
> I don't even know how you could give Gaddafi a trial considering those that lynched him were being attacked by his government...
Click to expand...

Both deserved what befell them. Saddam had the fortune of being found by _U.S. Forces..._


----------



## Lakhota

The T said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News.
> BREAKING NEWS
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was caught by US forces and turned over to the present Iraqi government..
> 
> Gaddafi was lynched by rebels..
> 
> I don't even know how you could give Gaddafi a trial considering those that lynched him were being attacked by his government...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both deserved what befell them. Saddam had the fortune of being found by _U.S. Forces..._
Click to expand...


Osama was also found by _U.S. Forces_...


----------



## Mr.Nick

Then the Kurds were just a humble tribe who refused to bow down to Saddam - what was Saddams solution to that? Send his sons up there to rape their woman and wall several of them. When that didn't work it was "gas the fuck out of them with WMD's."

Yeah that kinda pissed the civilized world off...

Saddam was like: "I'm Saddam and I will do whatever the fuck I want and I believe Kuwait belongs to me so I will just take it for me."


----------



## The T

Lakhota said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam was caught by US forces and turned over to the present Iraqi government..
> 
> Gaddafi was lynched by rebels..
> 
> I don't even know how you could give Gaddafi a trial considering those that lynched him were being attacked by his government...
> 
> 
> 
> Both deserved what befell them. Saddam had the fortune of being found by _U.S. Forces..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Osama was also found by _U.S. Forces_...
Click to expand...

Different mission..._creep._ You aren't very good at this, and history, are you?

You may kiss my pinky ring.


----------



## Lakhota

Mr.Nick said:


> Then the Kurds were just a humble tribe who refused to bow down to Saddam - what was Saddams solution to that? Send his sons up there to rape their woman and wall several of them. When that didn't work it was "gas the fuck out of them with WMD's."
> 
> Yeah that kinda pissed the civilized world off...
> 
> Saddam was like: "I'm Saddam and I will do whatever the fuck I want and I believe Kuwait belongs to me so I will just take it for me."



Sounds like you need a history refresher...


----------



## freedombecki

Lakhota said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> YES, they did.
> 
> Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, "they" didn't.
> 
> Saddam Hussein set himself up with heinous war crimes against his own people and against every neighbor Iraq borders. He caused the deaths of over 1.5 million Arabs, many of whom were Iraqi citizens, and he used WOMDs against his own people. He didn't turn any new leaves, he just got cleverer about concealing his killings from the public at large.
> 
> But he didn't pull the wool over Secretary of State Madeline Albright's eyes, and he didn't pull the wool over Colin Powell's nor Condoleeza Rice's eyes either. His crimes and threats got worse, and they never got better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, "they" DID.
Click to expand...

No, "they" didn't.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

freedombecki said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, "they" didn't.
> 
> Saddam Hussein set himself up with heinous war crimes against his own people and against every neighbor Iraq borders. He caused the deaths of over 1.5 million Arabs, many of whom were Iraqi citizens, and he used WOMDs against his own people. He didn't turn any new leaves, he just got cleverer about concealing his killings from the public at large.
> 
> But he didn't pull the wool over Secretary of State Madeline Albright's eyes, and he didn't pull the wool over Colin Powell's nor Condoleeza Rice's eyes either. His crimes and threats got worse, and they never got better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, "they" DID.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, "they" didn't.
Click to expand...


I love this argument.. "Bush's an idiot"  then followed up with "Bush the idiot" hoodwinked over half of congress as well other prominent figures.  Not to mntion manyt of them were calling for the overthrow of Saddam as far back as the nineties.

Makes sense to me.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Lakhota said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Kurds were just a humble tribe who refused to bow down to Saddam - what was Saddams solution to that? Send his sons up there to rape their woman and wall several of them. When that didn't work it was "gas the fuck out of them with WMD's."
> 
> Yeah that kinda pissed the civilized world off...
> 
> Saddam was like: "I'm Saddam and I will do whatever the fuck I want and I believe Kuwait belongs to me so I will just take it for me."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you need a history refresher...
Click to expand...


That didn't happen?


----------



## Sophist

People must remember that news networks are all profit based companies and can therefore be biased even unintentionally. It is saddening how much people are blindly led by the limited media sources they blow through and assume that the articles or news stories they indulge themselves in are the truth and nothing but. However, if that is the will of the people, we have no right to stop them. History has constantly showed that the people are always manipulated in one form or another and no amount of shouting can possibly bring them back to rationale until it kicks them in the face . Media pulling the strings may sound bad, but it's not like it's Nazi propaganda.


----------



## The T

Lakhota said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Kurds were just a humble tribe who refused to bow down to Saddam - what was Saddams solution to that? Send his sons up there to rape their woman and wall several of them. When that didn't work it was "gas the fuck out of them with WMD's."
> 
> Yeah that kinda pissed the civilized world off...
> 
> Saddam was like: "I'm Saddam and I will do whatever the fuck I want and I believe Kuwait belongs to me so I will just take it for me."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you need a history refresher...
Click to expand...

You are so immersed in 




 Enjoy the wallow son...


----------



## Mr.Nick

You know how Saddam took power?

Imagine a military general just walking into congress, then he starts to point out politicians he doesn't care for and has them dragged out my his military and executed..

That is exactly how Saddam took power with his Republican Guard coup...

The guy ordered the execution of his own son for an antic out of a Dudley Moore movie but this one included rape and murder. Lets just say Uday went on a rape rampage and then stabbed his limo driver to death then crashed his fathers dinner party drunk as a skunk..

Yeah, what type of clown gets drunk, rapes a bunch of woman then kills his limo driver THEN shows up to daddies palace where daddy is hosting a political dinner drunk in bloody cloths...


----------



## Mr.Nick

Lakhota said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Kurds were just a humble tribe who refused to bow down to Saddam - what was Saddams solution to that? Send his sons up there to rape their woman and wall several of them. When that didn't work it was "gas the fuck out of them with WMD's."
> 
> Yeah that kinda pissed the civilized world off...
> 
> Saddam was like: "I'm Saddam and I will do whatever the fuck I want and I believe Kuwait belongs to me so I will just take it for me."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you need a history refresher...
Click to expand...


You apparently don't know shit... Are you really this ignorant or just a troll?

This is common knowledge I'm posting here.


----------



## freedombecki

Sophist said:


> People must remember that news networks are all profit based companies and can therefore be biased even unintentionally. It is saddening how much people are blindly led by the limited media sources they blow through and assume that the articles or news stories they indulge themselves in are the truth and nothing but. However, if that is the will of the people, we have no right to stop them. History has constantly showed that the people are always manipulated in one form or another and no amount of shouting can possibly bring them back to rationale until it kicks them in the face . Media pulling the strings may sound bad, but it's not like it's Nazi propaganda.


Welcome to USMB, Sophist.

Please give an example of your reference to media pulling strings, won't you?


----------



## Charles_Main

JRK said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy' &#8212; part of which is shown here &#8212; said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News.
> BREAKING NEWS
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News



This is what Happens when the US does things half Assed, and Relies on Other to do our Dirty work. Bush did at Tora Bora and Osama Got away. Obama did it here, and the result is Gaddafi caught and then gunned down in Cold Blood in the street, as a direct result of US action.

I am more than glad he is gone, but I have to ask the Libs who are always talking about how many Terrorists we create with our Actions. Just how many Radical Terrorists do you think we have just inspired by Facilitating this event? The world would have been much better served if he had been brought to Trial for his crimes and then killed.


----------



## francoHFW

Those million and a half arabs were killed in the Iran-Iraq war RAYGUN supported Saddam in, and those Kurds were gassed with gas RAYGUN gave his buddy Saddam. Chickenhawk idiocy we're still trying to fix.


----------



## Charles_Main

freedombecki said:


> Sophist said:
> 
> 
> 
> People must remember that news networks are all profit based companies and can therefore be biased even unintentionally. It is saddening how much people are blindly led by the limited media sources they blow through and assume that the articles or news stories they indulge themselves in are the truth and nothing but. However, if that is the will of the people, we have no right to stop them. History has constantly showed that the people are always manipulated in one form or another and no amount of shouting can possibly bring them back to rationale until it kicks them in the face . Media pulling the strings may sound bad, but it's not like it's Nazi propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB, Sophist.
> 
> Please give an example of your reference to media pulling strings, won't you?
Click to expand...


You kidding the media Pulls stings all the time. Just by what they choose to cover, what they don't and how they skew that Coverage. If Obama was a Republican all we would have been hearing all these last months would have been about the Illegal Action the US was taking in Libya, and now, all we would be hearing about is how the US just violated International Law and carried out the assassination of a world Leader. 

But alas the Liberal Press likes Obama more than they hate war it appears. For the most part they have cheer leaded this mess in Libya. I know Libs are celebrating right now, and acting like Obama is John Wayne, But the cold truth is we have no idea what the FUCK we just did in Libya, or What Direction Libya will now take.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Obama did assassinate Gadaffi and Osama bin Laden.  When you go to war with a country, the leader of that country is fair game.  That has always been the case.
Click to expand...


Tell the asshole who started the thread.


----------



## Uncensored2008

francoHFW said:


> Those million and a half arabs were killed in the Iran-Iraq war RAYGUN supported Saddam in, and those Kurds were gassed with gas RAYGUN gave his buddy Saddam. Chickenhawk idiocy we're still trying to fix.



I'm just curious, why do you leftist repeat the same lies over and over? These lies have been debunked hundreds of times, but a couple of weeks later one of you drones will bleat the same old shit.

Fucking morons.


----------



## Trajan

Charles_Main said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sophist said:
> 
> 
> 
> People must remember that news networks are all profit based companies and can therefore be biased even unintentionally. It is saddening how much people are blindly led by the limited media sources they blow through and assume that the articles or news stories they indulge themselves in are the truth and nothing but. However, if that is the will of the people, we have no right to stop them. History has constantly showed that the people are always manipulated in one form or another and no amount of shouting can possibly bring them back to rationale until it kicks them in the face . Media pulling the strings may sound bad, but it's not like it's Nazi propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB, Sophist.
> 
> Please give an example of your reference to media pulling strings, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You kidding the media Pulls stings all the time. Just by what they choose to cover, what they don't and how they skew that Coverage. If Obama was a Republican all we would have been hearing all these last months would have been about the Illegal Action the US was taking in Libya, and now,* all we would be hearing about is how the US just violated International Law and carried out the assassination of a world Leader. *
> 
> But alas the Liberal Press likes Obama more than they hate war it appears. For the most part they have cheer leaded this mess in Libya. I know Libs are celebrating right now, and acting like Obama is John Wayne, But the cold truth is we have no idea what the FUCK we just did in Libya, or What Direction Libya will now take.
Click to expand...




> all we would be hearing about is how the US just violated International Law and carried out the assassination of a world Leader.



correction, we ABETTED


----------



## Trajan

I wonder if we will call any of Qaddafi's kin and offer condolences....


----------



## Mr.Nick

freedombecki said:


> Sophist said:
> 
> 
> 
> People must remember that news networks are all profit based companies and can therefore be biased even unintentionally. It is saddening how much people are blindly led by the limited media sources they blow through and assume that the articles or news stories they indulge themselves in are the truth and nothing but. However, if that is the will of the people, we have no right to stop them. History has constantly showed that the people are always manipulated in one form or another and no amount of shouting can possibly bring them back to rationale until it kicks them in the face . Media pulling the strings may sound bad, but it's not like it's Nazi propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB, Sophist.
> 
> Please give an example of your reference to media pulling strings, won't you?
Click to expand...


I think its funny the leftist msm calls the tea party racists yet turns around and supports the OWS morons that are screaming anti Semitic slogans regularly and presently have the Nazi party protesting their message..

There are no msm reports of any of that...

If a tea party member said "******" that would be front page news on every fucking MSM site, yet the OWS Nazi's are screaming "jew bastard" and "******" and no major media sites are reporting it.....


----------



## General_XVI

i think... the us needs oil.. y not kill the bich thats hogging it?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Soggy in NOLA said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftwing nuts who were against the Iraq war now support action in Libya because a Democrat is president.
> 
> End of story.
Click to expand...


http://www.usmessageboard.com/3439982-post135.html


Go back to bed, grandpa.


----------



## Mr.Nick

francoHFW said:


> Those million and a half arabs were killed in the Iran-Iraq war RAYGUN supported Saddam in, and those Kurds were gassed with gas RAYGUN gave his buddy Saddam. Chickenhawk idiocy we're still trying to fix.



We gave weaponry to rebels during the Afghan-Soviet war..

Ironically enough Al-Qaeda got them...

We never gave WMD's to Iraq.


----------



## francoHFW

Brainwashed chickenhawk Foxbots!! Ay caramba! LOL!


----------



## Harry Dresden

rdean said:


> Saddam - 3,000 Americans dead, 50,000 American maimed, our military depleted, 1 to 3 trillion in cost
> The people hate our guts and want us dead.  Threw shoes at the president.
> 
> Qaddafi - a few drones
> *Qaddafi sent a letter to Republicans* thanking them for their support.  The people put up billboards of the president, thanking him for his support.
> 
> There are some pluses.  Bush's friends were able to make billions off Iraq.  That's the only "good" thing I can think of.



he sent a Letter to CONGRESS Dean.....not the Republicans.....the fucking letter you posted in that other thread said this....do you read what you post?


----------



## Mr.Nick

francoHFW said:


> Brainwashed chickenhawk Foxbots!! Ay caramba! LOL!



Typical leftist response..

"you're an idiot" 

It's funny how you leftists get owned with facts and all you can say or imply is: "you're an idiot."

It's sad you have a problem with historical facts that happened over the last 30 years.


----------



## Sophist

freedombecki said:


> Sophist said:
> 
> 
> 
> People must remember that news networks are all profit based companies and can therefore be biased even unintentionally. It is saddening how much people are blindly led by the limited media sources they blow through and assume that the articles or news stories they indulge themselves in are the truth and nothing but. However, if that is the will of the people, we have no right to stop them. History has constantly showed that the people are always manipulated in one form or another and no amount of shouting can possibly bring them back to rationale until it kicks them in the face . Media pulling the strings may sound bad, but it's not like it's Nazi propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB, Sophist.
> 
> Please give an example of your reference to media pulling strings, won't you?
Click to expand...


Unintentionally media has the power to make stories appear or disappear. For example, if the media didn't talk about the Middle East rebels who would? What about the Japanese earthquake? Hear news about them anymore? (Ok I do see the exception of bloggers and social media outlets but these are not yet established as official news media outlets in my opinion and they are more biased than news media. More posts about how a party was last night than about rebel forces making headway into Tripoli). Maybe instead of pulling strings, it's more like toilet paper stuck to the bottom of their shoes and they unintentionally drag into around until it falls off. In essence my opinion of media is that they have a lot more power on people than they are aware of and they must be careful in choosing what they report to the world.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Sophist said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sophist said:
> 
> 
> 
> People must remember that news networks are all profit based companies and can therefore be biased even unintentionally. It is saddening how much people are blindly led by the limited media sources they blow through and assume that the articles or news stories they indulge themselves in are the truth and nothing but. However, if that is the will of the people, we have no right to stop them. History has constantly showed that the people are always manipulated in one form or another and no amount of shouting can possibly bring them back to rationale until it kicks them in the face . Media pulling the strings may sound bad, but it's not like it's Nazi propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB, Sophist.
> 
> Please give an example of your reference to media pulling strings, won't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unintentionally media has the power to make stories appear or disappear. For example, if the media didn't talk about the Middle East rebels who would? What about the Japanese earthquake? Hear news about them anymore? (Ok I do see the exception of bloggers and social media outlets but these are not yet established as official news media outlets in my opinion and they are more biased than news media. More posts about how a party was last night than about rebel forces making headway into Tripoli). Maybe instead of pulling strings, it's more like toilet paper stuck to the bottom of their shoes and they unintentionally drag into around until it falls off. In essence my opinion of media is that they have a lot more power on people than they are aware of and they must be careful in choosing what they report to the world.
Click to expand...


Problem is that progressives run the media and progressives have the attention span of a a cockroach...


----------



## Intense

JRK said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News.
> BREAKING NEWS
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News



Agreed. He should have been Apprehended and Tried.


----------



## freedombecki

francoHFW said:


> Brainwashed chickenhawk Foxbots!! Ay caramba! LOL!


Training a parrot?


----------



## rdean

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.



Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.

Republicans let 3,000 Americans die and tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life to bring down a hated dictator that never attacked us.  The Iraqi people thanked us by nearly beaning our president with a pair of shoes.  The only signs they put up said, "Death to America". 

Republican see one as good and one as bad.  You'll never guess which one they see as "good".


----------



## Intense

rdean said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.
> 
> Republicans let 3,000 Americans die and tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life to bring down a hated dictator that never attacked us.  The Iraqi people thanked us by nearly beaning our president with a pair of shoes.  The only signs they put up said, "Death to America".
> 
> Republican see one as good and one as bad.  You'll never guess which one they see as "good".
Click to expand...


What Due Process did Qaddafi receive? A bit Hypocritical RD.


----------



## freedombecki

rdean said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.
> 
> Republicans let 3,000 Americans die and tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life to bring down a hated dictator that never attacked us.  The Iraqi people thanked us by nearly beaning our president with a pair of shoes.  The only signs they put up said, "Death to America".
> 
> Republican see one as good and one as bad.  You'll never guess which one they see as "good".
Click to expand...

You're dividing the baby, RDean. Obama brought down a terrible dictator, but Saddam Hussein was far worse, and Bush brought Saddam down. Had you read Madeline Allbright's State Department notes on both countries, you would definitely know that. It's obvious to me you didn't bother in order to turn sensitive state matters into IEDs for political opponents.

I think that's a terrible idea.


----------



## Mr.Nick

rdean said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.
> 
> Republicans let 3,000 Americans die and tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life to bring down a hated dictator that never attacked us.  The Iraqi people thanked us by nearly beaning our president with a pair of shoes.  The only signs they put up said, "Death to America".
> 
> Republican see one as good and one as bad.  You'll never guess which one they see as "good".
Click to expand...


Are you fucking delusional??

Saddam and his sons were murdering lunatics.. I'm an expert on Saddam from birth to death...

Saddam makes Gaddafi look like an angel... Saddam was literally evil  - he can be placed in the Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc collection...

Obama gave rebels weaponry in Libya.... Not to mention Libya will turn into a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold now - which Obama wants...


----------



## Intense

Mr.Nick said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.
> 
> Republicans let 3,000 Americans die and tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life to bring down a hated dictator that never attacked us.  The Iraqi people thanked us by nearly beaning our president with a pair of shoes.  The only signs they put up said, "Death to America".
> 
> Republican see one as good and one as bad.  You'll never guess which one they see as "good".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you fucking delusional??
> 
> Saddam and his sons were murdering lunatics.. I'm an expert on Saddam from birth to death...
> 
> Saddam makes Gaddafi look like an angel... Saddam was literally evil  - he can be placed in the Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc collection...
> 
> Obama gave rebels weaponry in Libya.... Not to mention Libya will turn into a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold now - which Obama wants...
Click to expand...


Yep, those weapons will be used on us.


----------



## J.E.D

JRK said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News.
> BREAKING NEWS
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News



Everybody join the new humanitarian Republican party. Save the Dictators!


----------



## J.E.D

freedombecki said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.
> 
> Republicans let 3,000 Americans die and tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life to bring down a hated dictator that never attacked us.  The Iraqi people thanked us by nearly beaning our president with a pair of shoes.  The only signs they put up said, "Death to America".
> 
> Republican see one as good and one as bad.  You'll never guess which one they see as "good".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're dividing the baby, RDean. Obama brought down a terrible dictator, but Saddam Hussein was far worse, and Bush brought Saddam down. Had you read Madeline Allbright's State Department notes on both countries, you would definitely know that. It's obvious to me you didn't bother in order to turn sensitive state matters into IEDs for political opponents.
> 
> I think that's a terrible idea.
Click to expand...


Yeah...Bush brought down Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9/11) while he let Bin Laden go; then Obama had to come in and show Bushy how it's done.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Intense said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.
> 
> Republicans let 3,000 Americans die and tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life to bring down a hated dictator that never attacked us.  The Iraqi people thanked us by nearly beaning our president with a pair of shoes.  The only signs they put up said, "Death to America".
> 
> Republican see one as good and one as bad.  You'll never guess which one they see as "good".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you fucking delusional??
> 
> Saddam and his sons were murdering lunatics.. I'm an expert on Saddam from birth to death...
> 
> Saddam makes Gaddafi look like an angel... Saddam was literally evil  - he can be placed in the Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc collection...
> 
> Obama gave rebels weaponry in Libya.... Not to mention Libya will turn into a Muslim Brotherhood stronghold now - which Obama wants...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, those weapons will be used on us.
Click to expand...


There is a good chance of that...


----------



## Mr.Nick

JosefK said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.
> 
> Republicans let 3,000 Americans die and tens of thousands of Americans maimed for life to bring down a hated dictator that never attacked us.  The Iraqi people thanked us by nearly beaning our president with a pair of shoes.  The only signs they put up said, "Death to America".
> 
> Republican see one as good and one as bad.  You'll never guess which one they see as "good".
> 
> 
> 
> You're dividing the baby, RDean. Obama brought down a terrible dictator, but Saddam Hussein was far worse, and Bush brought Saddam down. Had you read Madeline Allbright's State Department notes on both countries, you would definitely know that. It's obvious to me you didn't bother in order to turn sensitive state matters into IEDs for political opponents.
> 
> I think that's a terrible idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah...Bush brought down Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9/11) while he let Bin Laden go; then Obama had to come in and show Bushy how it's done.
Click to expand...




Bill Clinton let Bin Laden go...

That is common knowledge...

Clinton had his ass cornered and could have had his ass offed but chose not to...

The Marines were about to kill his ass but Clinton told them to back off....

We had choppers ready to blow his as up yet Clinton told them not to...

That was back in 1998-99...


----------



## LordBrownTrout

We're a nation, falling apart.  I fear our government.


----------



## Lakhota

> Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
> 
> A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.



More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?


----------



## hortysir

NYcarbineer said:


> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.



yea

That is SOOO similar


----------



## LordBrownTrout

JosefK said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News.
> BREAKING NEWS
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody join the new humanitarian Republican party. Save the Dictators!
Click to expand...


Maybe you could explain how Mubarrak got a trial, Assad is running rampant killing thousands, nutjob hangs gays and stones women, and then Gaddafi gets blasted and killed? And.....the media, for the most part is against the death penalty, is feasting on the corpse?  Elaborate. Please.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Lakhota said:


> Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
> 
> A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
Click to expand...


There are only news reports on it pre Bush...

I only remember it on the local news back when I was 18.

I remember thinking that was really fucking stupid..


----------



## hortysir

Sallow said:


> Fair trial? Saddam got a kangaroo show trial followed by a farce and brutal execution. And it _*turns out Iraq was a war crime.*_ Saddam surrendered. He should have gone to the Hague or at least gotten the Amin/Noriega treatment. Gaddafi was offered multiple outs. He chose to fight. Buh bye.



Should I tell AP, or do you want to?


----------



## J.E.D

Mr.Nick said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're dividing the baby, RDean. Obama brought down a terrible dictator, but Saddam Hussein was far worse, and Bush brought Saddam down. Had you read Madeline Allbright's State Department notes on both countries, you would definitely know that. It's obvious to me you didn't bother in order to turn sensitive state matters into IEDs for political opponents.
> 
> I think that's a terrible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...Bush brought down Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9/11) while he let Bin Laden go; then Obama had to come in and show Bushy how it's done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton let Bin Laden go...
> 
> That is common knowledge...
> 
> Clinton had his ass cornered and could have had his ass offed but chose not to...
> 
> The Marines were about to kill his ass but Clinton told them to back off....
> 
> We had choppers ready to blow his as up yet Clinton told them not to...
> 
> That was back in 1998-99...
Click to expand...




Fast forward to 2001. Tora Bora. Bin Laden cornered. Bush let him go. He was a little busy in Iraq. Then fast forward to 2011. Pakistan. Obama gave the order to start the mission which lead to the death of Bin Laden. So, your point is?...


----------



## hortysir

NoNukes said:


> America did not invade Libya.



Airspace doesn't count?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the Kurds were just a humble tribe who refused to bow down to Saddam - what was Saddams solution to that? Send his sons up there to rape their woman and wall several of them. When that didn't work it was "gas the fuck out of them with WMD's."
> 
> Yeah that kinda pissed the civilized world off...
> 
> Saddam was like: "I'm Saddam and I will do whatever the fuck I want and I believe Kuwait belongs to me so I will just take it for me."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you need a history refresher...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That didn't happen?
Click to expand...


That did happen.  You're arguing with a revisionist.


----------



## J.E.D

Mr.Nick said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q: Did Bill Clinton pass up a chance to kill Osama bin Laden?
> 
> A: Probably not, and it would not have mattered anyway as there was no evidence at the time that bin Laden had committed any crimes against American citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More: FactCheck.org : Clinton Passed on Killing bin Laden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are only news reports on it pre Bush...
> 
> I only remember it on the local news back when I was 18.
> 
> I remember thinking that was really fucking stupid..
Click to expand...


So you don't have any actual evidence? You're basing your belief on a news report from the 90s?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

hortysir said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fair trial? Saddam got a kangaroo show trial followed by a farce and brutal execution. And it _*turns out Iraq was a war crime.*_ Saddam surrendered. He should have gone to the Hague or at least gotten the Amin/Noriega treatment. Gaddafi was offered multiple outs. He chose to fight. Buh bye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Should I tell AP, or do you want to?
Click to expand...


Watching them contort is a real laugher.


----------



## hortysir

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.



Liberals deflect when asked to explain their hypocrisy.

End of story.


----------



## francoHFW

Uncensored2008 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those million and a half arabs were killed in the Iran-Iraq war RAYGUN supported Saddam in, and those Kurds were gassed with gas RAYGUN gave his buddy Saddam. Chickenhawk idiocy we're still trying to fix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just curious, why do you leftist repeat the same lies over and over? These lies have been debunked hundreds of times, but a couple of weeks later one of you drones will bleat the same old shit.
> 
> Fucking morons.
Click to expand...



Just google it and you'll find tons of stuff you'll never see on Fox, mindless brainwashed fegging drone of the greedy rich....

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons ...
Jun 17, 2004 ... How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons.

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names - Cached - SimilarReagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
Jun 18, 2004 ... As writer Norm Dixon put it in his June 17, 2004, article How Reagan Armed 
Saddam with Chemical Weapons,. While the August 18 NYT ...

Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein - Cached - SimilarShaking Hands with Saddam Hussein
Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of 
chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the ...

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein - Cached - Similar


----------



## hortysir

paulitician said:


> I'm really interested in hearing what Leftist orgs like Human Rights Watch have to say about this. They have a long history of inconsistency and hypocrisy.



From reading their website,
Libya: New Era Needs Focus on Rights | Human Rights Watch

They're okay with Qaddafi getting dead.
Just not any of his government.



> Any prosecution of former government and military officials for human  rights abuses must in all cases protect the due process rights of the  accused, and exclude the possibility of cruel and inhuman punishment,  including the death penalty.


----------



## hortysir

Trajan said:


> this won't last long on you tube...
> 
> 
> &#x202b;
> 
> 
> being taken out of a truck, able, but barely to walk...then....*shrugs*...




An eery silence from the WH about this video being posted.

Seems strange after hearing that nothing could be accomplished by releasing OBL's pic.


----------



## Intense

JosefK said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/w...ay-qaddafi-stronghold-has-fallen.html?_r=1&hp
> 
> You know it amazes me how much history is decided to be right or wrong by what the media says
> Without our fighter jest Qaddafi is probably still alive, no congress, no reason we are ever told. Saddam is given years, congress twice concludes we are better off without him by resolve, he is arrested, has a fair trial and hanged for crimes against his own people. Some-how GWB is the bad guy in all of this and not sure what BHO is suppose to be any-more
> 
> URGENT: A U.S. Predator drone, along with a French fighter jet, fired on a 'large convoy'  part of which is shown here  said to be carrying Muammar Qaddafi in the moments before he was caught and killed, a U.S. defense official tells Fox News.
> BREAKING NEWS
> U.S. Predator Drone Fired On Qaddafi Convoy, Official Says | Fox News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody join the new humanitarian Republican party. Save the Dictators!
Click to expand...


Not Exactly. How's the Blood Lust going though? Is it truly working out all that well?


----------



## Intense

hortysir said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> this won't last long on you tube...
> 
> 
> &#x202b;
> 
> 
> being taken out of a truck, able, but barely to walk...then....*shrugs*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An eery silence from the WH about this video being posted.
> 
> Seems strange after hearing that nothing could be accomplished by releasing OBL's pic.
Click to expand...


I don't recommend looking towards the White House for consistency.


----------



## hortysir

Tipsycatlover said:


> Saddam Hussein was captured by Americans, tried, convicted and executed by Iraqis.
> 
> Gadaffi was captured by terrorists in Libya, surrendered, and shot.  Once in the head and once in the chest.



Probably by deep-cover special ops or CIA


----------



## Intense

NYcarbineer said:


> Rightwing nuts who were for the Iraq war now opposed any action in Libya because a Democrat was president.
> 
> End of story.



I think it had more to do with bypassing Congress.


----------



## pgm

Qaddafi went out Mussolini style.


----------



## Intense

francoHFW said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those million and a half arabs were killed in the Iran-Iraq war RAYGUN supported Saddam in, and those Kurds were gassed with gas RAYGUN gave his buddy Saddam. Chickenhawk idiocy we're still trying to fix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm just curious, why do you leftist repeat the same lies over and over? These lies have been debunked hundreds of times, but a couple of weeks later one of you drones will bleat the same old shit.
> 
> Fucking morons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just google it and you'll find tons of stuff you'll never see on Fox, mindless brainwashed fegging drone of the greedy rich....
> 
> How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons ...
> Jun 17, 2004 ... How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons.
> 
> How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names - Cached - SimilarReagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
> Jun 18, 2004 ... As writer Norm Dixon put it in his June 17, 2004, article How Reagan Armed
> Saddam with Chemical Weapons,. While the August 18 NYT ...
> 
> Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein - Cached - SimilarShaking Hands with Saddam Hussein
> Reagan's directive said that U.S. policy required "unambiguous" condemnation of
> chemical warfare (without naming Iraq), while including the caveat that the ...
> 
> Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein - Cached - Similar
Click to expand...


I think Franco fell asleep in his jello, babbling incoherently again.


----------



## hortysir

Contumacious said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam got a trial, Qaddafi got a bullet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, Saddam was Lynched - NO TRIAL.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



lying? or stupid?


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Why is the media feeding on the corpse.  It's despicable.  When one starts cheering bloodlust.....they become part of that.  This is very troubling.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

hortysir said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saddam Hussein was captured by Americans, tried, convicted and executed by Iraqis.
> 
> Gadaffi was captured by terrorists in Libya, surrendered, and shot.  Once in the head and once in the chest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably by deep-cover special ops or CIA
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> Iraq would have been acceptable _*if Iraqis were rising up against Saddam.*_
> 
> Like back when Bush 1 promised to help them if they did and then didn't follow through.
> 
> When we invaded, Iraqis were happy enough with their dictator.



50,000+ of them would have to be zombies in order to be able to do that


----------



## hortysir

Ravi said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraqis were rising up against Saddam.
> 
> Like back when Bush 1 promised to help them if they did and then didn't follow through.
> 
> When we invaded, Iraqis were happy enough with their dictator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the hundreds of thousands he murdered and put in mass graves adored his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*If they existed....*_the current population under Saddam didn't seem to care that much.
> 
> Sorry you didn't like the answer.
Click to expand...


BBC News | Saddam's Iraq: Key events
In 1988 Iraq turned its chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds in the north of the country.
    Some Kurdish guerrilla forces had joined the Iranian offensive.  
  		  On 16 March 1988, Iraq dropped bombs containing mustard gas, Sarin and Tabun on the Kurdish city of Halabja.  
  Estimates of the number of civilians killed range from 3,200 to 5,000, with many survivors suffering long-term health problems.  
  Chemical weapons were also used during Iraq's "Anfal" offensive - a  seven-month scorched-earth campaign in which an estimated 50,000 to  100,000 Kurdish villagers were killed or disappeared, and hundreds of  villages were razed.  




Sorry if you don't like the answer


----------



## francoHFW

Why are RWers so willfully ignorant. Reagan and co. were the biggest cowboy chickenhawks ever- until W. We'll be done cleaning up after them in about 50 years. And where do you morons get the idea the WH has any control over the rebels' cell phones? IDIOCY!

"The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted&#8230; US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witch&#8217;s brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.

The destination of much of this equipment was Saad 16, near Mosul in northern Iraq. Western intelligence agencies had long known that the sprawling complex was Iraq&#8217;s main ballistic missile development centre.

Blum reported that Washington was fully aware of the likely use of this material. In 1992, a US Senate committee learned that the commerce department had deleted references to military end-use from information it sent to Congress about 68 export licences, worth more than $1 billion.

In 1986, the US defence department&#8217;s deputy undersecretary for trade security, Stephen Bryen, had objected to the export of an advanced computer, similar to those used in the US missile program, to Saad 16 because "of the high likelihood of military end use". The state and commerce departments approved the sale without conditions.

In his book, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, Kenneth Timmerman points out that several US agencies were supposed to review US exports that may be detrimental to US "national security". However, the commerce department often did not submit exports to Hussein&#8217;s Iraq for review or approved them despite objections from other government departments.


How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names - Cached - SimilarReagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein


----------



## hortysir

francoHFW said:


> Why are RWers so willfully ignorant. Reagan and co. were the biggest cowboy chickenhawks ever- until W. We'll be done cleaning up after them in about 50 years. And where do you morons get the idea the WH has any control over the rebels' cell phones? IDIOCY!
> 
> "The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."
> 
> A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witchs brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.
> 
> The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.
> 
> Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.
> 
> The destination of much of this equipment was Saad 16, near Mosul in northern Iraq. Western intelligence agencies had long known that the sprawling complex was Iraqs main ballistic missile development centre.
> 
> Blum reported that Washington was fully aware of the likely use of this material. In 1992, a US Senate committee learned that the commerce department had deleted references to military end-use from information it sent to Congress about 68 export licences, worth more than $1 billion.
> 
> In 1986, the US defence departments deputy undersecretary for trade security, Stephen Bryen, had objected to the export of an advanced computer, similar to those used in the US missile program, to Saad 16 because "of the high likelihood of military end use". The state and commerce departments approved the sale without conditions.
> 
> In his book, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, Kenneth Timmerman points out that several US agencies were supposed to review US exports that may be detrimental to US "national security". However, the commerce department often did not submit exports to Husseins Iraq for review or approved them despite objections from other government departments.
> 
> 
> How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names - Cached - SimilarReagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein



Who here has denied that the US supplied weapons to Iraq?

How else would we KNOW that they had WMDs?


Would you care to comment on the topic of the thread?
How is aiding in the death of Qaddafi any different than Saddam?

I'll wait.


----------



## Intense

Ravi said:


> Iraq would have been acceptable if Iraqis were rising up against Saddam.
> 
> Like back when Bush 1 promised to help them if they did and then didn't follow through.
> 
> When we invaded, Iraqis were happy enough with their dictator.



Yeah. That bothered me at the time. We encouraged the Kurd's and then turned our backs, even while they were being gassed.


----------



## bripat9643

freedombecki said:


> That's not what I'm saying. Bush was not president in 2010. Obama is. Very early in 2010, Gadhafi's old minister came forward with proof Gadhafi had issued the order to take out Americans on Pan Am Flight 103 with a bomb of a plastic explosive called Semtex and was activated by a timer. The bomb was hidden in a Toshiba radio-cassette player. Parts of it were found in a wood 80 miles from Lockerbie by a man walking his dog who found a t-shirt containing some of the chips that helped investigators link it to the tragedy at Lockerbie. Most of the wreckage was found within a 50-mile parameter, it was a heinous explosion. When all the pieces of the puzzles came together, along with other intelligence, the stuff was traced to the 2 terrorists eventually convicted of the crime--11 years later. Firm proof of Gadhafi's order was obtained in 2010. Knowing someone did it and having irrefutable proof are completely different. Bush did not have the irrefutable proof, it came on Obama's watch.
> 
> Obama acted in accordance with his oath of office according to the Constitution, imho, in this instance.



That is unmitigated bullshit.  Obama didn't go after Gaddafi in 2010.  He went after him a year later only when Gaddafi was facing an internal uprising.  Obama took sides in a civil war.  The idea that we didn't know who was behind the Lockerbie bombing is too absurd for words. 

Face it, you're just another partisan hack who only cares whether a politician has a (D) or an (R) after his name.  You will excuse anything the former does and attack anything the later does.


----------



## bripat9643

Lakhota said:


> Saddam was set up by both Bush presidents and then LYNCHED.



You mean he was innocent?


----------



## bripat9643

hortysir said:


> Who here has denied that the US supplied weapons to Iraq?



I deny it.  The accusation is unmitigated bullshit.


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has denied that the US supplied weapons to Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I deny it.  The accusation is unmitigated bullshit.
Click to expand...


LOL. You are one stupid bastard, Pattycake. Even the conservatives here admit that.

To what extent did the US supply Iraq with materials used to create weapons of mass destruction? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org


----------



## bripat9643

francoHFW said:


> Why are RWers so willfully ignorant. Reagan and co. were the biggest cowboy chickenhawks ever- until W. We'll be done cleaning up after them in about 50 years. And where do you morons get the idea the WH has any control over the rebels' cell phones? IDIOCY!
> 
> "The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."
> 
> A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witchs brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.
> 
> The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.
> 
> Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.
> 
> The destination of much of this equipment was Saad 16, near Mosul in northern Iraq. Western intelligence agencies had long known that the sprawling complex was Iraqs main ballistic missile development centre.
> 
> Blum reported that Washington was fully aware of the likely use of this material. In 1992, a US Senate committee learned that the commerce department had deleted references to military end-use from information it sent to Congress about 68 export licences, worth more than $1 billion.
> 
> In 1986, the US defence departments deputy undersecretary for trade security, Stephen Bryen, had objected to the export of an advanced computer, similar to those used in the US missile program, to Saad 16 because "of the high likelihood of military end use". The state and commerce departments approved the sale without conditions.
> 
> In his book, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, Kenneth Timmerman points out that several US agencies were supposed to review US exports that may be detrimental to US "national security". However, the commerce department often did not submit exports to Husseins Iraq for review or approved them despite objections from other government departments.
> 
> 
> How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names - Cached - SimilarReagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein




You leftwing turds claim the US provided Iraq with weapons.  "Duel use technology" is not weapons. Almost anything can be considered "duel use."  A plant for making fertilizer can easily be converted to make explosives.  A plant for making tractors can easily be converted to produce armored vehicles.

The claim is a scam.  It's horseshit commie propaganda.  Anyone who posts it is just another lying leftwing con artist.


----------



## Old Rocks

hortysir said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are RWers so willfully ignorant. Reagan and co. were the biggest cowboy chickenhawks ever- until W. We'll be done cleaning up after them in about 50 years. And where do you morons get the idea the WH has any control over the rebels' cell phones? IDIOCY!
> 
> "The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."
> 
> A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witchs brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.
> 
> The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.
> 
> Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.
> 
> The destination of much of this equipment was Saad 16, near Mosul in northern Iraq. Western intelligence agencies had long known that the sprawling complex was Iraqs main ballistic missile development centre.
> 
> Blum reported that Washington was fully aware of the likely use of this material. In 1992, a US Senate committee learned that the commerce department had deleted references to military end-use from information it sent to Congress about 68 export licences, worth more than $1 billion.
> 
> In 1986, the US defence departments deputy undersecretary for trade security, Stephen Bryen, had objected to the export of an advanced computer, similar to those used in the US missile program, to Saad 16 because "of the high likelihood of military end use". The state and commerce departments approved the sale without conditions.
> 
> In his book, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, Kenneth Timmerman points out that several US agencies were supposed to review US exports that may be detrimental to US "national security". However, the commerce department often did not submit exports to Husseins Iraq for review or approved them despite objections from other government departments.
> 
> 
> How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names - Cached - SimilarReagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has denied that the US supplied weapons to Iraq?
> 
> How else would we KNOW that they had WMDs?
> 
> 
> Would you care to comment on the topic of the thread?
> How is aiding in the death of Qaddafi any different than Saddam?
> 
> I'll wait.
Click to expand...


By the time the total bill for Iraq has come in, it will be in the range of 3 trillion dollars. And we got another theocratic government for that money and over 4000 American lives. 

Gaddafi? We will have spent about 2 billion by the time this is over, and no American lives lost. And we have no responsibility for whatever the Libyans do next for a government.


----------



## Lakhota

bripat9643 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has denied that the US supplied weapons to Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I deny it.  The accusation is unmitigated bullshit.
Click to expand...


You should do some more research...


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are RWers so willfully ignorant. Reagan and co. were the biggest cowboy chickenhawks ever- until W. We'll be done cleaning up after them in about 50 years. And where do you morons get the idea the WH has any control over the rebels' cell phones? IDIOCY!
> 
> "The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein."
> 
> A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a "witchs brew" of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.
> 
> The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.
> 
> Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other "dual-use" items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.
> 
> The destination of much of this equipment was Saad 16, near Mosul in northern Iraq. Western intelligence agencies had long known that the sprawling complex was Iraqs main ballistic missile development centre.
> 
> Blum reported that Washington was fully aware of the likely use of this material. In 1992, a US Senate committee learned that the commerce department had deleted references to military end-use from information it sent to Congress about 68 export licences, worth more than $1 billion.
> 
> In 1986, the US defence departments deputy undersecretary for trade security, Stephen Bryen, had objected to the export of an advanced computer, similar to those used in the US missile program, to Saad 16 because "of the high likelihood of military end use". The state and commerce departments approved the sale without conditions.
> 
> In his book, The Death Lobby: How the West Armed Iraq, Kenneth Timmerman points out that several US agencies were supposed to review US exports that may be detrimental to US "national security". However, the commerce department often did not submit exports to Husseins Iraq for review or approved them despite objections from other government departments.
> 
> 
> How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names - Cached - SimilarReagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You leftwing turds claim the US provided Iraq with weapons.  "Duel use technology" is not weapons. Almost anything can be considered "duel use."  A plant for making fertilizer can easily be converted to make explosives.  A plant for making tractors can easily be converted to produce armored vehicles.
> 
> The claim is a scam.  It's horseshit commie propaganda.  Anyone who posts it is just another lying leftwing con artist.
Click to expand...


Well, Pattycake, there are dumb fucks and really dumb fucks. You are in the latter category.


----------



## francoHFW

# 253 -Sure. Up is down, white is black. Foxbots! LOL!!


----------



## Lakhota

Donald Trump On Muammar Gaddafi's Death: 'Big Deal' [WATCH]


----------



## francoHFW

My opinion on OP? We didn't have much to do with it at this point. It's called intelligent diplomacy - Nothing like dumbazz Pub cowboy chickenhawks...and Raygun GAVE Saddam any WMDs Saddam had- see above.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You leftwing turds claim the US provided Iraq with weapons.  "Duel use technology" is not weapons. Almost anything can be considered "duel use."  A plant for making fertilizer can easily be converted to make explosives.  A plant for making tractors can easily be converted to produce armored vehicles.
> 
> The claim is a scam.  It's horseshit commie propaganda.  Anyone who posts it is just another lying leftwing con artist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Pattycake, there are dumb fucks and really dumb fucks. You are in the latter category.
Click to expand...


That appears to be the best argument you can muster.  Apparently you didn't notice that you haven't proved a damn thing.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. You are one stupid bastard, Pattycake. Even the conservatives here admit that.
> 
> To what extent did the US supply Iraq with materials used to create weapons of mass destruction? - US - Iraq War - ProCon.org



They only "admit it" because they don't know the facts.  These claims have been examined over and over and they are complete bullshit.  "Duel use technology" is practically any technology you can name.  Anything Iraq bought from the US could be bought from almost any industrialized country in the world.  It would have been impossible to stop Iraq from buying it.


----------



## Lakhota

United States support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war


----------



## Lakhota

Bush the First, Hating Saddam, Selling Him Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## Lakhota

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam' | World news | The Guardian


----------



## Lakhota

How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


----------



## guy2593

paulitician said:


> YAY!! WHOOPY!! They murdered his family too!! Seriously,why are Americans celebrating this? There will be no benefit to them at all. Cheap oil? Yea don't count on it. And their own country is still crumbling. Oh well,another convenient distraction i guess.



who said they want the oil to make gas cheaper for the rest of us? they want it so they can continue to tell everyone theres a shortage when in fact, there isnt one and theres never been  one. that way when they raise the prices they can say the drop in supply caused the demand to raise or whatever. then they pocket the ridiculous profits, oh and all while paying just about no corporate income tax.


----------



## Lakhota

Osama also got a bullet.  Saddam died like a man.


----------



## Lakhota

10 Graphic Pictures: Muammar Gaddafi Dead Photos: Libyan Dictator Killed, Images Confirm (GRAPHIC)


----------



## California Girl

Lakhota said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who here has denied that the US supplied weapons to Iraq?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I deny it.  The accusation is unmitigated bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should do some more research...
Click to expand...


Google is not research.

Idiot.


----------



## Lakhota

California Girl said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I deny it.  The accusation is unmitigated bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should do some more research...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google is not research.
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


Sure it is when it lists multiple sources that can be cross-referenced and verified.


----------



## JRK

Lakhota said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do some more research...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google is not research.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is when it lists multiple sources that can be cross-referenced and verified.
Click to expand...


Of all people who should be using it

For $1 Billion, One Dictator - Kevin Baron - NationalJournal.com
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...KWxq1l&usg=AFQjCNHiM6K0BefKT3obyXnCp5WURy3MAg


----------



## bripat9643

Lakhota said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should do some more research...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google is not research.
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure it is when it lists multiple sources that can be cross-referenced and verified.
Click to expand...


Your "multiple sources" can all be traced back to the same source: leftwing crank.


----------



## bripat9643

Old Rocks said:


> By the time the total bill for Iraq has come in, it will be in the range of 3 trillion dollars. And we got another theocratic government for that money and over 4000 American lives.
> 
> Gaddafi? We will have spent about 2 billion by the time this is over, and no American lives lost. And we have no responsibility for whatever the Libyans do next for a government.



More leftwing horseshit.  You people just make up numbers.

The cost of an action does not determine whether it's ethical.  It only costs $0.25 for a bullet.  Does that make it ethical for me to put one through your head?  It may be a service to humanity, but it's not ethical.


----------



## JRK

bripat9643 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the time the total bill for Iraq has come in, it will be in the range of 3 trillion dollars. And we got another theocratic government for that money and over 4000 American lives.
> 
> Gaddafi? We will have spent about 2 billion by the time this is over, and no American lives lost. And we have no responsibility for whatever the Libyans do next for a government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More leftwing horseshit.  You people just make up numbers.
> 
> The cost of an action does not determine whether it's ethical.  It only costs $0.25 for a bullet.  Does that make it ethical for me to put one through your head?  It may be a service to humanity, but it's not ethical.
Click to expand...


The Iraq war cost less than 1 trillion
Those troops who chose to be there and fight mostly Al Qaeda did not do that so you could use the sacrifice as a stat Old Rocks, Leave it the fuck alone if that is the best you can do with it

We do not know what the end product in Egypt or Libya is. If we are going to go around replacing governments we need to first have congress involved and then next have the people there to make sure it works

One last thing, Qaddafi was killed by foot soldiers, the drone only set the trap, no foot soldiers, Qaddafi is still alive


----------



## freedombecki

http://www.usmessageboard.com/4300006-post264.html - Lakhota, post 264 - Blame Bush
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4300009-post265.html - Lakhota, post 265 - Blame Bush
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4300015-post266.html - Lakhota, post 266 - Blame Bush
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4300017-post267.html - Lakhota, post 267 - Blame Reagan/Bush
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4300044-post269.html - Lakhota, post 269 - Credit Obama for something for which Bush would have been excoriated and sent to World Court as war criminal
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4300068-post270.html - Lakhota, post 270 - Credit Obama for something for which Bush would have been excoriated and sent to World Court as war criminal
http://www.usmessageboard.com/4300085-post272.html - Lakhota, post 272 - base claims on multiple websites funded by and/or cooperative with Soros foundations

~zzzzzzzzz~


----------



## mudwhistle

Obama has a problem with telling the truth.

He gives in to hyperbole calling the "No-fly Zone" over Libya historic.....

*WTF???*

I guess he forgot about the No-fly Zone over Iraq that led to the ousting of Saddam.

Obama talks a good game but he's full of it. His No-fly Zone was really a bombing campaign that he never admitted ever took place....till yesterday. He would never openly admit that he was killing troops and civilians on the ground the last 6 months. He wouldn't admit that he supplied anti-Qaddafi forces weapons and training......calling the weapons "non-military aid". He invented the phrase "Static Military Action", and decided it was better to lead from behind rather then take the lead. So why does he feel he can take credit for this?

Because that is what he does. He wants to be all things to all people, but he is what he is....a poor leader. He only fights a rigged fight. One that he thinks is manageable. He'll never take on Iran. They aren't a paper-tiger like Qaddafi. He would have never taken on Saddam. Instead he claimed he was merely giving logistical support to the rebels. Fact is, without our help Nato would have collapsed and the rebels would have been slaughtered. 

Why doesn't he just admit what he's up to?

Because he's a fake. He loves to kill bad guys as much as anyone, but he wants to pass himself off as a peacemaker. He's anything but that. 

Now that Qaddafi is dead get ready for a media campaign to describe just exactly what a rat-bastard he was. Sure he was a bad man, but Obama was butt-buddies with him up to the point he started murdering his own people when they got the bright idea of having their own Arab Spring. 

The fight isn't over with. We have to leave Libya to sort their own problems out because if we put anyone on the ground there it will turn into another Iraq. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hLeJpS3wng]President Obama's Speech on Libya (March 28, 2011) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## francoHFW

Only news controlled by Murdoch and Rev. Moon are fair and balanced....MORONS! LOL!


----------



## JRK

mudwhistle said:


> Obama has a problem with telling the truth.
> 
> He gives in to hyperbole calling the "No-fly Zone" over Libya historic.....
> 
> *WTF???*
> 
> I guess he forgot about the No-fly Zone over Iraq that led to the ousting of Saddam.
> 
> Obama talks a good game but he's full of it. His No-fly Zone was really a bombing campaign that he never admitted ever took place....till yesterday. He would never openly admit that he was killing troops and civilians on the ground the last 6 months. He wouldn't admit that he supplied anti-Qaddafi forces weapons and training......calling the weapons "non-military aid".
> 
> Why doesn't he just admit what he's up to??????
> 
> Because he's a fake. He loves to kill bad guys as much as anyone, but he wants to pass himself off as a peacemaker. He's anything but that.
> 
> Now that Qaddafi is dead get ready for a media campaign to describe just exactly what a rat-bastard he was. Sure he was a bad man, but Obama was butt-buddies with him up to the point he started murdering his own people when they got the bright idea of having their own Arab Spring.
> 
> The fight isn't over with. We have to leave Libya to sort their own problems out because if we put anyone on the ground there it will turn into another Iraq.
> 
> President Obama's Speech on Libya (March 28, 2011) - YouTube



Mud GWB took 18 months of doing the right thing prior to invading Iraq. The people of this country knew exactly what was being done with there money and why as well as the troops who invaded. My contention that Obama is so far out of the constitution is back up when Clinton bombed Iraq in the late 90s


----------



## USArmyRetired

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNKFgGf5Bok]Hitler Finds out Gaddafi was killed - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Harry Dresden

Lakhota said:


> United States support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war



if the situation between Iraq and Iran today, was the same as it was back then,with the same players in their Governments.....i think Obama would be supporting Iraq also...just sayin.....


----------



## JRK

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> United States support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the situation between Iraq and Iran today, was the same as it was back then,with the same players in their Governments.....i think Obama would be supporting Iraq also...just sayin.....
Click to expand...


there is never a clear choice with those events. The bottom line is after 1991 Saddam was told to clean it up, with big brother watching
He did not

2 different events, times as well as endings


----------



## Harry Dresden

rdean said:


> Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.



you dishonest asshole.....the fucking link you put up about this said he sent a letter to CONGRESS....not the Republicans.....you talk about Republicans being lowlifes Dean....take a look in the mirror.....you will see another one....


----------



## JakeStarkey

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> United States support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the situation between Iraq and Iran today, was the same as it was back then,with the same players in their Governments.....i think Obama would be supporting Iraq also...just sayin.....
Click to expand...


I agree.  And the Bush admin, correctly, would have supported the coalition against Khadaffi.


----------



## JRK

Harry Dresden said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama kept people from dying in Libya and brought down a terrible dictator who was behind attacks on the US without the loss of a single American.  Their people put up billboards thanking our president for his support.  Qaddafi sent a letter of appreciation to Republicans thanking them for their support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you dishonest asshole.....the fucking link you put up about this said he sent a letter to CONGRESS....not the Republicans.....you talk about Republicans being lowlifes Dean....take a look in the mirror.....you will see another one....
Click to expand...


To start with the old sending a letter of thanks is nothing but race baiting, something Dean is an expert at as every left winger kook is. 
I could send Dean a letter thanking him for his contributions to H Cain, and for his work in the past supporting GWB
Means the same as what he posted, nothing

Obama has done something that we have no idea what the end game is going to be. Egypt is not going very well, if it was it would be front page news
Now we have been the leader (with no approval from congress) of the assassination of a countries president (dictator) as well as the change of there future 4 ever. Bottom line. Mr noble peace prize winner has turned out to be quite the outlaw with these drones and navy seals.


----------



## francoHFW

But the cowboy/chickenhawks would have screwed it all up. If they had even not gone with the dictator they knew, as Boooosh W did- incredibly cynical cold warriors who have hopefully left the scene forever....nothing but disaster in practice, but would have done it all right in the dreams of the ignorant brainwashed dupes....Moonies! pffffft!


----------



## francoHFW

My guess is the Arab Spring with Pubs would have been a p. 8 article about a riot crushed by gov't forces....move along, nothing to see here...with P. 1 anti gay marriage measures and a giant prison construction programs...A-holes.


----------



## mudwhistle

Harry Dresden said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> United States support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the situation between Iraq and Iran today, was the same as it was back then,with the same players in their Governments.....i think Obama would be supporting Iraq also...just sayin.....
Click to expand...


About the same way he suported the Democracy movement in Iran......by paying lip-service to it.


----------



## paulitician

guy2593 said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> YAY!! WHOOPY!! They murdered his family too!! Seriously,why are Americans celebrating this? There will be no benefit to them at all. Cheap oil? Yea don't count on it. And their own country is still crumbling. Oh well,another convenient distraction i guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who said they want the oil to make gas cheaper for the rest of us? they want it so they can continue to tell everyone theres a shortage when in fact, there isnt one and theres never been  one. that way when they raise the prices they can say the drop in supply caused the demand to raise or whatever. then they pocket the ridiculous profits, oh and all while paying just about no corporate income tax.
Click to expand...


Well at least we agree this thing was all about oil. That old "It's all for the children and Democracy" stuff is such B.S.


----------



## mudwhistle

francoHFW said:


> But the cowboy/chickenhawks would have screwed it all up. If they had even not gone with the dictator they knew, as Boooosh W did- incredibly cynical cold warriors who have hopefully left the scene forever....nothing but disaster in practice, but would have done it all right in the dreams of the ignorant brainwashed dupes....Moonies! pffffft!



What are you babbling about?

Interesting that the dishonest can not only find fault in what did happen but in your case bitch and moan about the little voices   in your head.


----------



## High_Gravity

mudwhistle said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> United States support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the situation between Iraq and Iran today, was the same as it was back then,with the same players in their Governments.....i think Obama would be supporting Iraq also...just sayin.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the same way he suported the Democracy movement in Iran......by paying lip-service to it.
Click to expand...


Actually I don't even think he did that, he was quiet when the uprisings happened in Iran.


----------



## High_Gravity

francoHFW said:


> But the cowboy/chickenhawks would have screwed it all up. If they had even not gone with the dictator they knew, as Boooosh W did- incredibly cynical cold warriors who have hopefully left the scene forever....nothing but disaster in practice, but would have done it all right in the dreams of the ignorant brainwashed dupes....Moonies! pffffft!



What the fuck are you even trying to say?


----------



## Intense

High_Gravity said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the situation between Iraq and Iran today, was the same as it was back then,with the same players in their Governments.....i think Obama would be supporting Iraq also...just sayin.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About the same way he suported the Democracy movement in Iran......by paying lip-service to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I don't even think he did that, he was quiet when the uprisings happened in Iran.
Click to expand...


Yep.


----------



## Intense

High_Gravity said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the cowboy/chickenhawks would have screwed it all up. If they had even not gone with the dictator they knew, as Boooosh W did- incredibly cynical cold warriors who have hopefully left the scene forever....nothing but disaster in practice, but would have done it all right in the dreams of the ignorant brainwashed dupes....Moonies! pffffft!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck are you even trying to say?
Click to expand...


I think the Taliban is wanting to Recruit Franco about now.... No wait....


----------



## mudwhistle

High_Gravity said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> if the situation between Iraq and Iran today, was the same as it was back then,with the same players in their Governments.....i think Obama would be supporting Iraq also...just sayin.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About the same way he suported the Democracy movement in Iran......by paying lip-service to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I don't even think he did that, he was quiet when the uprisings happened in Iran.
Click to expand...

What he has been is silent on is their weapons program. 

He briefly said he supported peace protestors, but because it was more problematic to him he also dropped it just as quickly dispite the fact they're a nuke threat and a huge terrorist threat. 

Has anyone noticed how little effect all of that bowing and apologizing got us?

More of the same is what we got.


----------



## konradv

paulitician said:


> Very good point. And this was the most blatant up front 'War for Oil' i've ever seen. Shame on the Liberal Press and all others who were cheerleading for this war.



At least a "War for Oil" makes sense for the national interest.  Unlike a war in which a tin-pot dictator, bottled up in his own country, is touted as an "immediate threat" to the U.S. with nuclear fears added that couldn't have reached fruition for a decade or more.


----------



## mudwhistle

konradv said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good point. And this was the most blatant up front 'War for Oil' i've ever seen. Shame on the Liberal Press and all others who were cheerleading for this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least a "War for Oil" makes sense for the national interest.  Unlike a war in which a tin-pot dictator, bottled up in his own country, is touted as an "immediate threat" to the U.S. with nuclear fears added that couldn't have reached fruition for a decade or more.
Click to expand...


Don't you mean "Tin-Horn"?

Oh, who buys that "War for Oil" BS?

Wait a minute.........didn't the Lockerby Bomber get released so BP could get Libyan off-shore drilling rights?

Yeah, that's the ticket. 

Right after the balloon went up in the Libyan version of the Arab Spring the price of gas went from $1.95/ gal to over $4. 

Sounds like a "War For Oil" to me.


----------



## JRK

Iraq provides 3% of the worlds oil, now when it comes to what Obama has done with Egypt and Libya is anybodies guess'He has never shared with us why we killed these people with tax payer owned "stuff"


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> At least a "War for Oil" makes sense for the national interest.



IF Obama is in charge. When Bush was in office, a war for oil was war crimes.

Reality depends on the party in charge. ALL acts by the glorious peoples fascist democrats are good and pure. All acts by the infidel Republicans are evil.



> Unlike a war in which a tin-pot dictator, bottled up in his own country, is touted as an "immediate threat" to the U.S. with nuclear fears added that couldn't have reached fruition for a decade or more.



Obama Akbar indeed!


----------



## JRK

konradv said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good point. And this was the most blatant up front 'War for Oil' i've ever seen. Shame on the Liberal Press and all others who were cheerleading for this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least a "War for Oil" makes sense for the national interest.  Unlike a war in which a tin-pot dictator, bottled up in his own country, is touted as an "immediate threat" to the U.S. with nuclear fears added that couldn't have reached fruition for a decade or more.
Click to expand...


to start with there has never been a deceleration of war. This was and still is my biggest concern. Its not Obama's place in life to decide when, where and how our military is used except when certain conditions are met
Qaddafi nor Egypt had met those special conditions


----------



## Ame®icano




----------



## Intense

JRK said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good point. And this was the most blatant up front 'War for Oil' i've ever seen. Shame on the Liberal Press and all others who were cheerleading for this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least a "War for Oil" makes sense for the national interest.  Unlike a war in which a tin-pot dictator, bottled up in his own country, is touted as an "immediate threat" to the U.S. with nuclear fears added that couldn't have reached fruition for a decade or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> to start with there has never been a deceleration of war. This was and still is my biggest concern. Its not Obama's place in life to decide when, where and how our military is used except when certain conditions are met
> Qaddafi nor Egypt had met those special conditions
Click to expand...


Hey, my Neighbor has a bunch of unpaid Parking Tickets. Should He Worry?


----------



## traveler52

One:

Torture, under International Law and Under U.S. Law.  Torture is banned.  No person under U.S. Detention or U.S. Control can be Tortured.

Qaddafi was NEVER UNDER U.S. CONTROL.

He ran and attempt to hide from Rebel Forces in Libya.  He was a deposed Leader.  He was never under U.S. Control.

What is really gripping your tightie whitie ass is that Qaddafi is dead...period.  

Not only is Qaddafi dead, but he is dead and NO U.S. TROOPS WERE INVOLVED AND YOUR FUCKING HATING IT.

Let's Look At The RePug Score Board.

Under President Obama.

1.  Usama Bin Laden Dead.

2.  Major Leaders of al_Qeada dead.

3.  No Terrorist Attacks.

4.  Murbarak ousted and facing trial.

5.  Qaddafi Killed.

6.  U.S. Withdrawing From Iraq.


Under The Shrub.

1.   Worst Terrorist Attack In U.S. History.

2.  Allowed Bin Laden To Escape From Tora Bora Mountains.

3.  Supported A Treaty That Gave Bin Laden Safe Haven In Pakistan.

4.  Two Illegal and Un-Constitutional Wars.

5.  Over 3.5 Million Jobs Lost in last of 2008.

6.  Left U.S. With An $11,000,000,000,000,00.00 Debt.

7.  Turned Control of U.S. Economy Over To The People's Republic of (Communist) China.

8.  Over Nine Billion Dollars In U.S. Tax Payer Dollars go "*Missing and/or Un-Accounted for*" from the Iraqi Provisional Government.

9.  Failed To Capture Usama Bin Laden ("*Dead or Alive*").

10. Gave Free Pass Qaddafi from "*Axis of Evil*".

It really puts your frillies in bunch to know how badly the shrub failed.

I'm Fucking Lovin' It.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bush a loser, Obama a winner.  End of story, neo-cons and libertarians.  Tuff luck.


----------



## JRK

Intense said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least a "War for Oil" makes sense for the national interest.  Unlike a war in which a tin-pot dictator, bottled up in his own country, is touted as an "immediate threat" to the U.S. with nuclear fears added that couldn't have reached fruition for a decade or more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to start with there has never been a deceleration of war. This was and still is my biggest concern. Its not Obama's place in life to decide when, where and how our military is used except when certain conditions are met
> Qaddafi nor Egypt had met those special conditions
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, my Neighbor has a bunch of unpaid Parking Tickets. Should He Worry?
Click to expand...


sounds funny, but it is exactly my point. Obama is not god, he was not elected to decide for us who we assassinate or not. That is funny though


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush a loser, Obama a winner.  End of story, neo-cons and libertarians.  Tuff luck.



Obama Akbar indeed.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush a loser, Obama a winner.  End of story, neo-cons and libertarians.  Tuff luck.



Jake, Sometimes you are so like a Paris Prostitute during the German Occupation. 

Do you reload for the opposition too, or just stay focused on the Happy Endings? 

I understand if MultiTasking Fucks with your concentration.


----------



## Intense

traveler52 said:


> One:
> 
> Torture, under International Law and Under U.S. Law.  Torture is banned.  No person under U.S. Detention or U.S. Control can be Tortured.
> 
> Qaddafi was NEVER UNDER U.S. CONTROL.
> 
> He ran and attempt to hide from Rebel Forces in Libya.  He was a deposed Leader.  He was never under U.S. Control.
> 
> What is really gripping your tightie whitie ass is that Qaddafi is dead...period.
> 
> Not only is Qaddafi dead, but he is dead and NO U.S. TROOPS WERE INVOLVED AND YOUR FUCKING HATING IT.
> 
> Let's Look At The RePug Score Board.
> 
> Under President Obama.
> 
> 1.  Usama Bin Laden Dead.
> 
> 2.  Major Leaders of al_Qeada dead.
> 
> 3.  No Terrorist Attacks.
> 
> 4.  Murbarak ousted and facing trial.
> 
> 5.  Qaddafi Killed.
> 
> 6.  U.S. Withdrawing From Iraq.
> 
> 
> Under The Shrub.
> 
> 1.   Worst Terrorist Attack In U.S. History.
> 
> 2.  Allowed Bin Laden To Escape From Tora Bora Mountains.
> 
> 3.  Supported A Treaty That Gave Bin Laden Safe Haven In Pakistan.
> 
> 4.  Two Illegal and Un-Constitutional Wars.
> 
> 5.  Over 3.5 Million Jobs Lost in last of 2008.
> 
> 6.  Left U.S. With An $11,000,000,000,000,00.00 Debt.
> 
> 7.  Turned Control of U.S. Economy Over To The People's Republic of (Communist) China.
> 
> 8.  Over Nine Billion Dollars In U.S. Tax Payer Dollars go "*Missing and/or Un-Accounted for*" from the Iraqi Provisional Government.
> 
> 9.  Failed To Capture Usama Bin Laden ("*Dead or Alive*").
> 
> 10. Gave Free Pass Qaddafi from "*Axis of Evil*".
> 
> It really puts your frillies in bunch to know how badly the shrub failed.
> 
> I'm Fucking Lovin' It.



Nice Fantasy you live in.


----------



## mudwhistle

traveler52 said:


> One:
> 
> Torture, under International Law and Under U.S. Law.  Torture is banned.  No person under U.S. Detention or U.S. Control can be Tortured.
> 
> Qaddafi was NEVER UNDER U.S. CONTROL.
> 
> He ran and attempt to hide from Rebel Forces in Libya.  He was a deposed Leader.  He was never under U.S. Control.
> 
> What is really gripping your tightie whitie ass is that Qaddafi is dead...period.
> 
> Not only is Qaddafi dead, but he is dead and NO U.S. TROOPS WERE INVOLVED AND YOUR FUCKING HATING IT.
> 
> Let's Look At The RePug Score Board.
> 
> Under President Obama.
> 
> 1.  Usama Bin Laden Dead.
> 
> 2.  Major Leaders of al_Qeada dead.
> 
> 3.  No Terrorist Attacks.
> 
> 4.  Murbarak ousted and facing trial.
> 
> 5.  Qaddafi Killed.
> 
> 6.  U.S. Withdrawing From Iraq.
> 
> 
> Under The Shrub.
> 
> 1.   Worst Terrorist Attack In U.S. History.
> 
> 2.  Allowed Bin Laden To Escape From Tora Bora Mountains.
> 
> 3.  Supported A Treaty That Gave Bin Laden Safe Haven In Pakistan.
> 
> 4.  Two Illegal and Un-Constitutional Wars.
> 
> 5.  Over 3.5 Million Jobs Lost in last of 2008.
> 
> 6.  Left U.S. With An $11,000,000,000,000,00.00 Debt.
> 
> 7.  Turned Control of U.S. Economy Over To The People's Republic of (Communist) China.
> 
> 8.  Over Nine Billion Dollars In U.S. Tax Payer Dollars go "*Missing and/or Un-Accounted for*" from the Iraqi Provisional Government.
> 
> 9.  Failed To Capture Usama Bin Laden ("*Dead or Alive*").
> 
> 10. Gave Free Pass Qaddafi from "*Axis of Evil*".
> 
> It really puts your frillies in bunch to know how badly the shrub failed.
> 
> I'm Fucking Lovin' It.



If no US troops were involved how can Osama Obama take credit for the take-down?

No troops, no credit. 

Leading from behind as usual.


----------



## JRK

traveler52 said:


> One:
> 
> Torture, under International Law and Under U.S. Law.  Torture is banned.  No person under U.S. Detention or U.S. Control can be Tortured.
> 
> Qaddafi was NEVER UNDER U.S. CONTROL.
> 
> He ran and attempt to hide from Rebel Forces in Libya.  He was a deposed Leader.  He was never under U.S. Control.
> 
> What is really gripping your tightie whitie ass is that Qaddafi is dead...period.
> 
> Not only is Qaddafi dead, but he is dead and NO U.S. TROOPS WERE INVOLVED AND YOUR FUCKING HATING IT.
> 
> Let's Look At The RePug Score Board.
> 
> Under President Obama.
> 
> 1.  Usama Bin Laden Dead.
> 
> 2.  Major Leaders of al_Qeada dead.
> 
> 3.  No Terrorist Attacks.
> 
> 4.  Murbarak ousted and facing trial.
> 
> 5.  Qaddafi Killed.
> 
> 6.  U.S. Withdrawing From Iraq.
> 
> 
> Under The Shrub.
> 
> 1.   Worst Terrorist Attack In U.S. History.
> 
> 2.  Allowed Bin Laden To Escape From Tora Bora Mountains.
> 
> 3.  Supported A Treaty That Gave Bin Laden Safe Haven In Pakistan.
> 
> 4.  Two Illegal and Un-Constitutional Wars.
> 
> 5.  Over 3.5 Million Jobs Lost in last of 2008.
> 
> 6.  Left U.S. With An $11,000,000,000,000,00.00 Debt.
> 
> 7.  Turned Control of U.S. Economy Over To The People's Republic of (Communist) China.
> 
> 8.  Over Nine Billion Dollars In U.S. Tax Payer Dollars go "*Missing and/or Un-Accounted for*" from the Iraqi Provisional Government.
> 
> 9.  Failed To Capture Usama Bin Laden ("*Dead or Alive*").
> 
> 10. Gave Free Pass Qaddafi from "*Axis of Evil*".
> 
> It really puts your frillies in bunch to know how badly the shrub failed.
> 
> I'm Fucking Lovin' It.



your a long way off of the reservation dude. I dont know even were to start
There was ground troops in both wars Obama got us involved in with no congressional oversight, there not ours, YET


 With projected receipts significantly less than projected outlays, the budget proposed by President Bush predicts a net deficit of approximately 240 billion dollars, adding to a United States governmental debt of about $10.8 trillion. 2008

this has had 5 trillion added to it in 3 years, less than W added in 8 with 9-11 and 2 wars and a full blown liberal congress in 07-08 who are resp for most of it as our 2007 deficit was 163 billion dollars

The job loss sense 2008 is 6 million, that would be SENSE 2008, let me help you with that lie
this is called a link
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...Luw7xk&usg=AFQjCNGm3dC5rf0yae-MejvTNykVWcKb1g


2001...... 131,826         110,708          23,873             606           6,826          16,441
 2002...... 130,341         108,828          22,557             583           6,716          15,259
 2003...... 129,999         108,416          21,816             572           6,735          14,510
 2004...... 131,435         109,814          21,882             591           6,976          14,315
 2005...... 133,703         111,899          22,190             628           7,336          14,226
 2006...... 136,086         114,113          22,531             684           7,691          14,155
 2007...... 137,598         115,380          22,233             724           7,630          13,879
 2008...... 136,790         114,281          21,334             767           7,162          13,406
 2009...... 130,807         108,252          18,557             694           6,016          11,847

 2010...... 129,818         107,337          17,755             705           5,526          11,524

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...Luw7xk&usg=AFQjCNGm3dC5rf0yae-MejvTNykVWcKb1g

as you can see you numbers are no correct, unless of course the govt has lied here
OBL was killed by Navy seals using Intel from before  BHO was elected

The only UN constitutional wars are the ones BHO has been involved in, GWB had congress bless both wars he had no choice in fighting

AS far as the missing money in Iraq, BHO has given the UAW 80 billion dollars of our wealth. He has given other unions 100s of billion
He has spent billions on killing Qaddafi
He has spent billions in loaning money to companies that either went over seas or went BK. and from all of these activities many have given him back that same wealth to put in his "re-election" coffer

Those pilots they flew the early missions, that moved the drones, serviced them, put weapons on them delivered the weapons etc... etc... etc.. are not U.S. Troops?


The only thing I hate is this obsession you losers have with hating GWB, and you constant lies about what he did an who he was, it is pathetic


----------



## The T

mudwhistle said:


> traveler52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One:
> 
> Torture, under International Law and Under U.S. Law. Torture is banned. No person under U.S. Detention or U.S. Control can be Tortured.
> 
> Qaddafi was NEVER UNDER U.S. CONTROL.
> 
> He ran and attempt to hide from Rebel Forces in Libya. He was a deposed Leader. He was never under U.S. Control.
> 
> What is really gripping your tightie whitie ass is that Qaddafi is dead...period.
> 
> Not only is Qaddafi dead, but he is dead and NO U.S. TROOPS WERE INVOLVED AND YOUR FUCKING HATING IT.
> 
> Let's Look At The RePug Score Board.
> 
> Under President Obama.
> 
> 1. Usama Bin Laden Dead.
> 
> 2. Major Leaders of al_Qeada dead.
> 
> 3. No Terrorist Attacks.
> 
> 4. Murbarak ousted and facing trial.
> 
> 5. Qaddafi Killed.
> 
> 6. U.S. Withdrawing From Iraq.
> 
> 
> Under The Shrub.
> 
> 1. Worst Terrorist Attack In U.S. History.
> 
> 2. Allowed Bin Laden To Escape From Tora Bora Mountains.
> 
> 3. Supported A Treaty That Gave Bin Laden Safe Haven In Pakistan.
> 
> 4. Two Illegal and Un-Constitutional Wars.
> 
> 5. Over 3.5 Million Jobs Lost in last of 2008.
> 
> 6. Left U.S. With An $11,000,000,000,000,00.00 Debt.
> 
> 7. Turned Control of U.S. Economy Over To The People's Republic of (Communist) China.
> 
> 8. Over Nine Billion Dollars In U.S. Tax Payer Dollars go "*Missing and/or Un-Accounted for*" from the Iraqi Provisional Government.
> 
> 9. Failed To Capture Usama Bin Laden ("*Dead or Alive*").
> 
> 10. Gave Free Pass Qaddafi from "*Axis of Evil*".
> 
> It really puts your frillies in bunch to know how badly the shrub failed.
> 
> I'm Fucking Lovin' It.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If no US troops were involved how can Osama Obama take credit for the take-down?
> 
> No troops, no credit.
> 
> Leading from behind as usual.
Click to expand...

And for the nefarious purpose of pandering for second term. What else is new?


----------



## The T

Intense said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush a loser, Obama a winner. End of story, neo-cons and libertarians. Tuff luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake, Sometimes you are so like a Paris Prostitute during the German Occupation.
> 
> Do you reload for the opposition too, or just stay focused on the Happy Endings?
> 
> I understand if MultiTasking Fucks with your concentration.
Click to expand...

 
Jake must have some _Vichy French _in the family tree...or the tree is a _stump._

_I haven't decided which yet._


----------



## Katzndogz

Under obama

FOREX-Dollar slumps to record low versus yen | Reuters

NEW YORK, Oct 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. dollar slumped to a record low against the yen on Friday in its biggest one-day decline in nearly two months,


----------



## JRK

Its out of control with these loons guys
There is so much BS going on, can you imagine if GWB woke up one morning and began bombing Iraq when he wanted to?


----------



## Katzndogz

obama backed the wrong horse and it will kick him where it hurts.


----------



## Lakhota

10 Graphic Pictures: Muammar Gaddafi Dead Photos: Libyan Dictator Killed, Images Confirm (GRAPHIC)


----------



## Harry Dresden

francoHFW said:


> But the cowboy/chickenhawks would have screwed it all up. If they had even not gone with the dictator they knew, as Boooosh W did- incredibly cynical cold warriors who have hopefully left the scene forever....nothing but disaster in practice, but would have done it all right in the dreams of the ignorant brainwashed dupes....Moonies! pffffft!



geezus....your Mr.Shamen without the color bullshit......


----------



## Harry Dresden

mudwhistle said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> United States support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if the situation between Iraq and Iran today, was the same as it was back then,with the same players in their Governments.....i think Obama would be supporting Iraq also...just sayin.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> About the same way he suported the Democracy movement in Iran......by paying lip-service to it.
Click to expand...


so far i dont think Obama has done much lip synching.....


----------



## Baron

Probably in two years all western governments will curse clandestine Muslim Hussein Obama who allowed Muslim Brotherhood to run Libya, Tunisia and  Egypt.


----------



## Harry Dresden

JakeStarkey said:


> Bush a loser, Obama a winner.  End of story, neo-cons and libertarians.  Tuff luck.



Obama aint a winner yet Jake......our Country is still sinking,and as a leader HERE....he fucking sucks.....


----------



## Trajan

I cannot imagine, say Condi Rice getting away with this....last video at the bottom of the page; "We came, we saw, he died."yuck yuck yuck"...

We came, we saw, he died: What Hillary Clinton told news reporter moments after hearing of Gaddafi's death | Mail Online


----------



## Trajan

Harry Dresden said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the cowboy/chickenhawks would have screwed it all up. If they had even not gone with the dictator they knew, as Boooosh W did- incredibly cynical cold warriors who have hopefully left the scene forever....nothing but disaster in practice, but would have done it all right in the dreams of the ignorant brainwashed dupes....Moonies! pffffft!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geezus....your Mr.Shamen without the color bullshit......
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush a loser, Obama a winner.  End of story, neo-cons and libertarians.  Tuff luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama Akbar indeed.
Click to expand...


Obama victah, indeed.  Bush losah, no need.


----------



## paulitician

This Libyan War is an illegal intervention. This President didn't even go to Congress. Doesn't anyone care about the Constitution anymore?


----------



## GoneBezerk

The differences between Libya and Iraq....

1) Iraq invaded Kuwait back in the 90s which started the eventual invasion of Iraq. Libya didn't invade their neighbor, they just supported terrorists back in the 80s compared to Iraq supporting terrorists up to the invasion of Iraq.

2) Saddam was killed by the Iraqi Govt, Qadaffi was killed by a mob of terrorists that now have his weapons to use on us, other Libyans, Europeans and Israel.

3) Iraq is a more functional country and will be a better asset to the US than Libya. Libya will be a oil gateway for terrorists in Africa and into southern Europe.

10 years from now people will realize dragging out the elimination of Qadaffi and no getting his weapons away from the terrorists was a bigger mistake than not getting UBL in Tora Bora.


----------



## paulitician

Juswt another stupid war that will backfire on us eventually. When will they ever learn?


----------



## JakeStarkey

paulitician said:


> This Libyan War is an illegal intervention. This President didn't even go to Congress. Doesn't anyone care about the Constitution anymore?



No, it is not and the GOP leaders are downplaying Obama's role in it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GoneBezerk said:


> The differences between Libya and Iraq....
> 
> 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait back in the 90s which started the eventual invasion of Iraq. Libya didn't invade their neighbor, they just supported terrorists back in the 80s compared to Iraq supporting terrorists up to the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> 2) Saddam was killed by the Iraqi Govt, Qadaffi was killed by a mob of terrorists that now have his weapons to use on us, other Libyans, Europeans and Israel.
> 
> 3) Iraq is a more functional country and will be a better asset to the US than Libya. Libya will be a oil gateway for terrorists in Africa and into southern Europe.
> 
> 10 years from now people will realize dragging out the elimination of Qadaffi and no getting his weapons away from the terrorists was a bigger mistake than not getting UBL in Tora Bora.



Bezerk has gone Bizaro.

#1 is irrelevant to anything.  #2 makes no sense.  #3 is flat wrong; Iraq will follow Iran's lead on matters with the West.  #4 Flat wrong.

Additional #5: neo-conservatism is a mental disease.


----------



## NYcarbineer

hortysir said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush tried to assassinate Saddam on the first day of the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yea
> 
> That is SOOO similar
Click to expand...


What's the difference?  On the first night of 'shock and awe' the US targeted a bunker/dwelling whatever that was believed to be where Saddam Hussein was located.

Oh, and btw, didn't Reagan try to assassinate Khadaffi way back when??  Yes, I think he did.


----------



## NYcarbineer

GoneBezerk said:


> The differences between Libya and Iraq....
> 
> 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait back in the 90s which started the eventual invasion of Iraq. Libya didn't invade their neighbor, they just supported terrorists back in the 80s compared to Iraq supporting terrorists up to the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> 2) Saddam was killed by the Iraqi Govt, Qadaffi was killed by a mob of terrorists that now have his weapons to use on us, other Libyans, Europeans and Israel.
> 
> 3) Iraq is a more functional country and will be a better asset to the US than Libya. Libya will be a oil gateway for terrorists in Africa and into southern Europe.
> 
> 10 years from now people will realize dragging out the elimination of Qadaffi and no getting his weapons away from the terrorists was a bigger mistake than not getting UBL in Tora Bora.



What business of ours was a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait?


----------



## NYcarbineer

GoneBezerk said:


> The differences between Libya and Iraq....
> 
> 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait back in the 90s which started the eventual invasion of Iraq. Libya didn't invade their neighbor, they just supported terrorists back in the 80s compared to Iraq supporting terrorists up to the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> 2) Saddam was killed by the Iraqi Govt, Qadaffi was killed by a mob of terrorists that now have his weapons to use on us, other Libyans, Europeans and Israel.
> 
> 3) Iraq is a more functional country and will be a better asset to the US than Libya. Libya will be a oil gateway for terrorists in Africa and into southern Europe.
> 
> 10 years from now people will realize dragging out the elimination of Qadaffi and no getting his weapons away from the terrorists was a bigger mistake than not getting UBL in Tora Bora.



Libya invaded Chad in the past.


----------



## HUGGY

paulitician said:


> Very good point. And this was the most blatant up front 'War for Oil' i've ever seen. Shame on the Liberal Press and all others who were cheerleading for this war.



Really?  How much of the oil we use comes from Lybia?  1%?...None?

You are a moron.


----------



## bripat9643

NYcarbineer said:


> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The differences between Libya and Iraq....
> 
> 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait back in the 90s which started the eventual invasion of Iraq. Libya didn't invade their neighbor, they just supported terrorists back in the 80s compared to Iraq supporting terrorists up to the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> 2) Saddam was killed by the Iraqi Govt, Qadaffi was killed by a mob of terrorists that now have his weapons to use on us, other Libyans, Europeans and Israel.
> 
> 3) Iraq is a more functional country and will be a better asset to the US than Libya. Libya will be a oil gateway for terrorists in Africa and into southern Europe.
> 
> 10 years from now people will realize dragging out the elimination of Qadaffi and no getting his weapons away from the terrorists was a bigger mistake than not getting UBL in Tora Bora.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What business of ours was a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait?
Click to expand...



Yeah, and how about that border dispute between Nazi Germany and Poland?  What business of ours was that?


----------



## paulitician

HUGGY said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very good point. And this was the most blatant up front 'War for Oil' i've ever seen. Shame on the Liberal Press and all others who were cheerleading for this war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  How much of the oil we use comes from Lybia?  1%?...None?
> 
> You are a moron.
Click to expand...


Europe gets more. And that number should increase for us now as well. It's only a win for Americans if they get the oil cheaper though. But i'm not counting on that happening. Where are all those sweet Iraqi oil deals? All we have to show for these stupid wars is a $16 Trillion Debt,Massive American bloodshed,and higher gas prices. Gaddafi being dead aint gonna change anything. So i wouldn't be so quick to celebrate this stuff. American Citizens wont see any benefits from it. It's a nice distraction for the politicians but our own nation continues to crumble. We need real change.


----------



## CT9

JRK said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm really interested in hearing what Leftist orgs like Human Rights Watch have to say about this. They have a long history of inconsistency and hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt they can say anything, it was a war battle that gadafi was involved in, that got him killed...as others in these battles were killed by gadafi's people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the issue. Obama took action with no involvement from congress. GWB has been drug thru the more crap about Iraq than any man ever deserved
> Bush did it the right way, chicken, guts and feathers and if any-one was lying it was the UN. With this event we still do not know why Qaddafi was taken out and taken out by this administration. That war battle began when US fighter jets and drones bombed the living shit out of Qaddafi's defenses
> Its not a matter of was it the right thing to do, we dont know. we were never told why this event has taken place
Click to expand...


wow how was the UN lying and not Bush? I'm up in the air about whether he lied about WMDs or the intel was bad, but it was a bad war to get involved in regardless. How did the UN lie though?


----------



## NYcarbineer

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The differences between Libya and Iraq....
> 
> 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait back in the 90s which started the eventual invasion of Iraq. Libya didn't invade their neighbor, they just supported terrorists back in the 80s compared to Iraq supporting terrorists up to the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> 2) Saddam was killed by the Iraqi Govt, Qadaffi was killed by a mob of terrorists that now have his weapons to use on us, other Libyans, Europeans and Israel.
> 
> 3) Iraq is a more functional country and will be a better asset to the US than Libya. Libya will be a oil gateway for terrorists in Africa and into southern Europe.
> 
> 10 years from now people will realize dragging out the elimination of Qadaffi and no getting his weapons away from the terrorists was a bigger mistake than not getting UBL in Tora Bora.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What business of ours was a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how about that border dispute between Nazi Germany and Poland?  What business of ours was that?
Click to expand...


We didn't get involved over that.


----------



## paulitician

It's always for the "Poor children" and "Democracy." The reality is that it's only about the oil. Europe and the U.S. could care less about Libya otherwise. Now will Americans see the cheap oil deals? Not sure. It hasn't happened in Iraq yet. So stay tuned i guess.


----------



## JakeStarkey

CT9 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt they can say anything, it was a war battle that gadafi was involved in, that got him killed...as others in these battles were killed by gadafi's people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the issue. Obama took action with no involvement from congress. GWB has been drug thru the more crap about Iraq than any man ever deserved
> Bush did it the right way, chicken, guts and feathers and if any-one was lying it was the UN. With this event we still do not know why Qaddafi was taken out and taken out by this administration. That war battle began when US fighter jets and drones bombed the living shit out of Qaddafi's defenses
> Its not a matter of was it the right thing to do, we dont know. we were never told why this event has taken place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow how was the UN lying and not Bush? I'm up in the air about whether he lied about WMDs or the intel was bad, but it was a bad war to get involved in regardless. How did the UN lie though?
Click to expand...


UN did not lie, I am not sure about Bush though his immoral stubborness in refusing to admit his wrong headedness and apologize to America is worse, abd JRK is in the jump seat with him on that.


----------



## JRK

CT9 said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> i doubt they can say anything, it was a war battle that gadafi was involved in, that got him killed...as others in these battles were killed by gadafi's people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the issue. Obama took action with no involvement from congress. GWB has been drug thru the more crap about Iraq than any man ever deserved
> Bush did it the right way, chicken, guts and feathers and if any-one was lying it was the UN. With this event we still do not know why Qaddafi was taken out and taken out by this administration. That war battle began when US fighter jets and drones bombed the living shit out of Qaddafi's defenses
> Its not a matter of was it the right thing to do, we dont know. we were never told why this event has taken place
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow how was the UN lying and not Bush? I'm up in the air about whether he lied about WMDs or the intel was bad, but it was a bad war to get involved in regardless. How did the UN lie though?
Click to expand...


How did the UN lie?
In reality what I should have said was Saddam lied and the UN repeated it

Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in *January 2003* that "Iraq appears* not to have come to a genuine acceptance*not even todayof the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[116] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[116]
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j...K5zIB-&usg=AFQjCNF5f7Np0YRHc8P-53bCuFpytJhtCg

There was also discussion about 6500 munitions missing. note the date
UN inspection reports provided evidence to the Security Council that Iraq had failed to account for 6,500 chemical bombs, thousand of tons of known chemical agents, empty chemical warheads (including an empty Sakr-18 chemical warhead) discovered subsequent to Iraq's declaration, and stocks of thiodiglycol (a precursor of mustard gas).

Read more: Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) - Iraq War: Prelude to War (The International Debate Over the Use and Effectiveness of Weapons Inspections) -


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> UN did not lie, I am not sure about Bush though his immoral stubborness in refusing to admit his wrong headedness and apologize to America is worse, abd JRK is in the jump seat with him on that.



Jake,

Please take Barack's cock out of your mouth when you speak. You're mumbling and impossible to understand....


----------



## JRK

Hey Jake
you make allot of accusations, with nothing to back it up with


----------



## grunt11b

It's really not that hard to understand, think of it this way, Osama Bin Laden was trained by our CIA to fight the Russians in the 80's, he has secrets that most certainly would have been revealed had he been put on the stand in a trial, so he obviously had to be done with, which would explain why they shot him while he was unarmed. I'm glad they did though dont get me wrong. Anwar Awlaki dined at the pentagon shortly after 9/11, so apparently he has some kind of connection through the CIA or something, so of course he had to go too, couldn't put him on trial and have him spill any secrets either. 
 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7oqACMl6D4]Anwar Al Awlaki Is A Pentagon CIA Asset. - YouTube[/ame]
 Qaddafi? Lets just say he falls into the same group as above, he knew things about America that they did not want brought out in the open at a trial.  It's all dirty. Dont get me wrong, the world is a better place without these people, and I am glad that someone turned them into a ghost, but dont misunderstand what is going on at the same time. Secrets secrets secrets.


----------



## Old Rocks

bripat9643 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GoneBezerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The differences between Libya and Iraq....
> 
> 1) Iraq invaded Kuwait back in the 90s which started the eventual invasion of Iraq. Libya didn't invade their neighbor, they just supported terrorists back in the 80s compared to Iraq supporting terrorists up to the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> 2) Saddam was killed by the Iraqi Govt, Qadaffi was killed by a mob of terrorists that now have his weapons to use on us, other Libyans, Europeans and Israel.
> 
> 3) Iraq is a more functional country and will be a better asset to the US than Libya. Libya will be a oil gateway for terrorists in Africa and into southern Europe.
> 
> 10 years from now people will realize dragging out the elimination of Qadaffi and no getting his weapons away from the terrorists was a bigger mistake than not getting UBL in Tora Bora.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What business of ours was a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and how about that border dispute between Nazi Germany and Poland?  What business of ours was that?
Click to expand...


Now Pattycake, seems to me that it was none of our business at the time. In fact, we did absolutely nothing about it. It was only after Pearl Harbor, when Nazi Germany declared war on us, that we went to war with Germany.


----------



## JRK

Looks Like Libya is headed for a far worse Govt. then they had. 
New Leader: Libya To Scrap Non-Sharia Laws | Sweetness & Light
Not sure how you can have a democratic govt where women are treated as second class citiens


----------



## Uncensored2008

Old Rocks said:


> Now Pattycake, seems to me that it was none of our business at the time. In fact, we did absolutely nothing about it. It was only after Pearl Harbor, when Nazi Germany declared war on us, that we went to war with Germany.



When American ships joined the British in sinking the German Destroyer "Graf Spree" in 1940, might that have been considered provocation? 

We had been clandestinely at war for years prior to Pearl Harbor. American pilots and planes under British command, sea battles in the Atlantic, the USA was up to it's eyeballs in the conflict.


----------



## JRK

Uncensored2008 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Pattycake, seems to me that it was none of our business at the time. In fact, we did absolutely nothing about it. It was only after Pearl Harbor, when Nazi Germany declared war on us, that we went to war with Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When American ships joined the British in sinking the German Destroyer "Graf Spree" in 1940, might that have been considered provocation?
> 
> We had been clandestinely at war for years prior to Pearl Harbor. American pilots and planes under British command, sea battles in the Atlantic, the USA was up to it's eyeballs in the conflict.
Click to expand...


It is amazing when the cost of Iraq comes up no-one remembers that we closed bases in Saudi, Kuwait and much of what the U.N. was getting was cut


----------



## JakeStarkey

None of the neo-cons are anything but fail here.  Can't argue, don't understand evidence, have problem with morality.  Just a sorry bunch of folks who are here only for grins and chuckles.


----------



## Old Rocks

These poor pathetic 'Patriots'. President Obama gets the man that planned the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil. And they are crying about the injustice of it all. Then we give a little help to the Libyans to get rid of a dictator that was involved in the deaths of Americans over Lockerbie, and their chorus of wails is deafening. Cry for the poor little dictator, he was so mistreated by those citizens of his nation that he has mistreated for years. 

Ah yes, they can all join hands with Chavez in mourning this poor person.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Harry Dresden said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bush a loser, Obama a winner.  End of story, neo-cons and libertarians.  Tuff luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama aint a winner yet Jake......our Country is still sinking,and as a leader HERE....he fucking sucks.....
Click to expand...


Compared to Bush, Obama will also be a major league winner to a bush league loser. 

However, Bush is one of our all time three worst presidents, so Obama looks good only in comparison to Bush looking bad.


----------



## Old Rocks

JRK said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Pattycake, seems to me that it was none of our business at the time. In fact, we did absolutely nothing about it. It was only after Pearl Harbor, when Nazi Germany declared war on us, that we went to war with Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When American ships joined the British in sinking the German Destroyer "Graf Spree" in 1940, might that have been considered provocation?
> 
> We had been clandestinely at war for years prior to Pearl Harbor. American pilots and planes under British command, sea battles in the Atlantic, the USA was up to it's eyeballs in the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is amazing when the cost of Iraq comes up no-one remembers that we closed bases in Saudi, Kuwait and much of what the U.N. was getting was cut
Click to expand...


LOL.   Bin Laden stated that when he attacked the US he had three things in mind. To get the US out of Saudi Arabia, to bankrupt the US as he claimed to have done to the USSR, and to show the world how depraved the US truly is.

So Bush closed the bases in Saudi Arabia. #1

Then there was the little matter of Abu Ghariub. #3

And, although #2 is not quite a reality, it is still a damned close thing, and may yet happen.

Oh yes, those of us that have reasonably good memories remember a lot of things that happened during the tenure of the most incompetant administration this nation has ever endured.


----------



## JRK

Old Rocks said:


> JRK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When American ships joined the British in sinking the German Destroyer "Graf Spree" in 1940, might that have been considered provocation?
> 
> We had been clandestinely at war for years prior to Pearl Harbor. American pilots and planes under British command, sea battles in the Atlantic, the USA was up to it's eyeballs in the conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amazing when the cost of Iraq comes up no-one remembers that we closed bases in Saudi, Kuwait and much of what the U.N. was getting was cut
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL.   Bin Laden stated that when he attacked the US he had three things in mind. To get the US out of Saudi Arabia, to bankrupt the US as he claimed to have done to the USSR, and to show the world how depraved the US truly is.
> 
> So Bush closed the bases in Saudi Arabia. #1
> 
> Then there was the little matter of Abu Ghariub. #3
> 
> And, although #2 is not quite a reality, it is still a damned close thing, and may yet happen.
> 
> Oh yes, those of us that have reasonably good memories remember a lot of things that happened during the tenure of the most incompetant administration this nation has ever endured.
Click to expand...


It amazes me that the left claims "the most incompetant administration this nation has ever endured.[/QUOTE]"
really?

So what is this grand path we are headed down now?

And without the GOP running congress from 94-06 (except for 01-02) where would we be?
You can almost pick out the day the Dems took over the senate in 01 and the day they took over the congress in 07

Job Creation

 1994...... 114,291          95,016          22,774             659           5,095          17,020
 1995...... 117,298          97,865          23,156             641           5,274          17,241
 1996...... 119,708         100,169          23,409             637           5,536          17,237
 1997...... 122,776         103,113          23,886             654           5,813          17,419
 1998...... 125,930         106,021          24,354             645           6,149          17,560
 1999...... 128,993         108,686          24,465             598           6,545          17,322

 2000...... 131,785         110,995          24,649             599           6,787          17,263
 2001...... 131,826         110,708          23,873             606           6,826          16,441
 2002...... 130,341         108,828          22,557             583           6,716          15,259
 2003...... 129,999         108,416          21,816             572           6,735          14,510
 2004...... 131,435         109,814          21,882             591           6,976          14,315
 2005...... 133,703         111,899          22,190             628           7,336          14,226
 2006...... 136,086         114,113          22,531             684           7,691          14,155
 2007...... 137,598         115,380          22,233             724           7,630          13,879
 2008...... 136,790         114,281          21,334             767           7,162          13,406
 2009...... 130,807         108,252          18,557             694           6,016          11,847

 2010...... 129,818         107,337          17,755             705           5,526          11,524


----------



## Sallow

Old Rocks said:


> These poor pathetic 'Patriots'. President Obama gets the man that planned the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil. And they are crying about the injustice of it all. Then we give a little help to the Libyans to get rid of a dictator that was involved in the deaths of Americans over Lockerbie, and their chorus of wails is deafening. Cry for the poor little dictator, he was so mistreated by those citizens of his nation that he has mistreated for years.
> 
> Ah yes, they can all join hands with Chavez in mourning this poor person.



Absolutely amazing, ain't it?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Simple enough: JRK et al are not patriots at all.  They are simply devoted to destroying the USA from the inside by spending its people and treasure stupidly and wickedly.


----------



## konradv

Uncensored2008 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Pattycake, seems to me that it was none of our business at the time. In fact, we did absolutely nothing about it. It was only after Pearl Harbor, when Nazi Germany declared war on us, that we went to war with Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When *American ships joined the British* in sinking the German Destroyer "Graf Spree" in 1940, might that have been considered provocation?
> 
> We had been clandestinely at war for years prior to Pearl Harbor. American pilots and planes under British command, sea battles in the Atlantic, the USA was up to it's eyeballs in the conflict.
Click to expand...


Got a cite for that particular piece of BS(in BOLD)?  Nothing in the universe most of us live in seems to mention any American ships.  Perhaps it only happened in the bizarro world you occupy. Though it's not surprising that you'd give ANY excuse to make your Nazi compatriots look better!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

konradv said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now Pattycake, seems to me that it was none of our business at the time. In fact, we did absolutely nothing about it. It was only after Pearl Harbor, when Nazi Germany declared war on us, that we went to war with Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When *American ships joined the British* in sinking the German Destroyer "Graf Spree" in 1940, might that have been considered provocation?
> 
> We had been clandestinely at war for years prior to Pearl Harbor. American pilots and planes under British command, sea battles in the Atlantic, the USA was up to it's eyeballs in the conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Got a cite for that particular piece of BS(in BOLD)?  Nothing in the universe most of us live in seems to mention any American ships.  Perhaps it only happened in the bizarro world you occupy. Though it's not surprising that you'd give ANY excuse to make your Nazi compatriots look better!!!
Click to expand...


American fascists like Uncensored keep everybody on their toes to counter his propaganda and lies.  My goodness, that was bold of him to publish such a comment, but, hey, this is America, and UncensoredFascist has the right to lie publicly.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

JRK said:


> *Saddam got a trial, Qaddafi got a predator drone then a bullet*



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmcqDBT37SQ]World Reacts to Obama Victory - YouTube[/ame]

*






> "*Born at the earliest fringe of the baby boom, Mr. Bush* was pressed during his years at Yale, 1964 to 1968, to take sides in the great battles then unfolding over politics, civil rights, drugs and music. Mostly he was a noncombatant in those upheavals, but when forced to choose, he ultimately retreated to the values and ideals established by his parents' generation, and to their accepted methods of rebelling.
> 
> In short, *while some students took to the barricades, Mr. Bush took to the bar.*"
> 
> *An American SCREW-UP*


----------



## JRK

Old Rocks said:


> These poor pathetic 'Patriots'. President Obama gets the man that planned the murder of 3000 Americans on American soil. And they are crying about the injustice of it all. Then we give a little help to the Libyans to get rid of a dictator that was involved in the deaths of Americans over Lockerbie, and their chorus of wails is deafening. Cry for the poor little dictator, he was so mistreated by those citizens of his nation that he has mistreated for years.
> 
> Ah yes, they can all join hands with Chavez in mourning this poor person.



What are you babbling about bud?
what does OBL and the job the seals did have to do with Libya? Do you have any idea what the constitution says about starting wars without congress approval?
Do you think Obama can do what he damn well pleases with OUR military?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Do you have any idea about pre-emptive wars and international approval?  The bushies will find out.


----------



## Uncensored2008

konradv said:


> Got a cite for that particular piece of BS(in BOLD)?  Nothing in the universe most of us live in seems to mention any American ships.  Perhaps it only happened in the bizarro world you occupy. Though it's not surprising that you'd give ANY excuse to make your Nazi compatriots look better!!!



Let me google that for you


----------



## Patandtom

What did  the American citizen's get on 9-11-01.No warning,No trial just death.I don't have any sympathy for Qaddafi or Saddam.AMEN!!


----------



## JRK

Patandtom said:


> What did  the American citizen's get on 9-11-01.No warning,No trial just death.I don't have any sympathy for Qaddafi or Saddam.AMEN!!



We have to maintain a Govt that operates within the constitution. Iraq (Saddam) had congress approve of those events
Obama has yet to explain to any-one what the deal with Egypt or Qaddafi was about. Agreeing with it to me is not the issue. The issue is why does BHO think he owns the US military?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Congressional approval, although not a Declaration of War, does not relieve America from meeting international standards of war.

The Bush adminsitration violated those standards, and sooner or later the officials will answer for it.

Obama is a deflection by JRK because JRK now has nothing else in his major fail OP.


----------



## JRK

JakeStarkey said:


> Congressional approval, although not a Declaration of War, does not relieve America from meeting international standards of war.
> 
> The Bush adminsitration violated those standards, and sooner or later the officials will answer for it.
> 
> Obama is a deflection by JRK because JRK now has nothing else in his major fail OP.



Jake d you have a link to support your accusations as to where any-one has issued a warrant for his arrest?
And what about the 50 other nations that helped us?


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> Congressional approval, although not a Declaration of War, does not relieve America from meeting international standards of war.
> 
> The Bush adminsitration violated those standards, and sooner or later the officials will answer for it.
> 
> Obama is a deflection by JRK because JRK now has nothing else in his major fail OP.



Irrelevant comrade Jake; the War Powers Act of 1973 stipulates that the President must notify congress of military action within 48 hours. Your Messiah® didn't do that, he violated the war powers act and engaged in an illegal war.

He did what you and other leftists lied about Bush doing, yet here you are defending it.

Look, you have no credibility anyway, but this further illustrates what a partisan hack you are. The only thing you care about is the "D" or "R" after the name. You'll defend ANY act by a democrat and attack ANY act by a Republican. Simple as that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are the fascist comrade, Uncensored, as we all know.  Your deflection about Obama does not relieve the bushies at all in their complicity of pre-emptive war.  Neo-cons, such as you and others, simply are not believed.  But yammer on.


----------



## JRK

JakeStarkey said:


> You are the fascist comrade, Uncensored, as we all know.  Your deflection about Obama does not relieve the bushies at all in their complicity of pre-emptive war.  Neo-cons, such as you and others, simply are not believed.  But yammer on.



Jake do you have any idea how pathetic you have become?
Dude get a grip okay? I mean it
Your talking about people yammering and its been months sense you have said anything other than bushies, pre emptive war, on and on and on and on and on


----------



## JakeStarkey

Continue to yammer on, my ineffective little fascist blogger.  If you have any points other than silliness, go ahead and make them, and I will address them.  But deflection about Obama when the OP begins "Saddam got a trial" and JRK has had his ass handed to him ever since?  Grow up.


----------



## JRK

JakeStarkey said:


> Continue to yammer on, my ineffective little fascist blogger.  If you have any points other than silliness, go ahead and make them, and I will address them.  But deflection about Obama when the OP begins "Saddam got a trial" and JRK has had his ass handed to him ever since?  Grow up.



Jake you have not once dis agreed with me
Grow up?
Jake you called me a fascist blogger and you want me to grow up?'

Jake I dont recall you doing anything other than calling people names, Dude chill out


----------



## Uncensored2008

JakeStarkey said:


> You are the fascist comrade, Uncensored, as we all know.



You're an idiot Jake, the constant stream of Malapropisms flowing from you are both amusing and sad.



> Your deflection about Obama does not relieve the bushies at all in their complicity of pre-emptive war.



This thread is about the assassination of Quadaffi, moron. The deflection is entirely yours. 



> Neo-cons, such as you and others, simply are not believed.  But yammer on.



I'm nowhere near a "Neocon" stupid shit. You simply don't comprehend what the words you spew mean.  You repeat what you read on KOS with no grasp at all what the words mean.


----------



## JRK

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the fascist comrade, Uncensored, as we all know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot Jake, the constant stream of Malapropisms flowing from you are both amusing and sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your deflection about Obama does not relieve the bushies at all in their complicity of pre-emptive war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about the assassination of Quadaffi, moron. The deflection is entirely yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neo-cons, such as you and others, simply are not believed.  But yammer on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm nowhere near a "Neocon" stupid shit. You simply don't comprehend what the words you spew mean.  You repeat what you read on KOS with no grasp at all what the words mean.
Click to expand...


Is it weired that Libyia is off of the front page? must not be going good. I do not know what is going on with Jake. I really do wish I could help him


----------



## Care4all

from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli....

Did you guys know that (Tripoli)/Libya  was the first country to declare war against the united states?  And Jefferson sent the Navy over to "settle" the matter?


----------



## JakeStarkey

JRK said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Continue to yammer on, my ineffective little fascist blogger.  If you have any points other than silliness, go ahead and make them, and I will address them.  But deflection about Obama when the OP begins "Saddam got a trial" and JRK has had his ass handed to him ever since?  Grow up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jake you have not once dis agreed with me  Grow up?  Jake you called me a fascist blogger and you want me to grow up?'  Jake I dont recall you doing anything other than calling people names, Dude chill out
Click to expand...


Your evidence has been debunked, your whining has been properly chastisted.  Grow up.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored2008 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the fascist comrade, Uncensored, as we all know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot Jake, the constant stream of Malapropisms flowing from you are both amusing and sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your deflection about Obama does not relieve the bushies at all in their complicity of pre-emptive war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is about the assassination of Quadaffi, moron. The deflection is entirely yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neo-cons, such as you and others, simply are not believed.  But yammer on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm nowhere near a "Neocon" stupid shit. You simply don't comprehend what the words you spew mean.  You repeat what you read on KOS with no grasp at all what the words mean.
Click to expand...


You are a whining rightwing progressive Hard Right fascist neopcon.

Sghut up the whining.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neo-cons have no idea of history or its consequences for interventionist adventurism, and when they get caught in the snares of their stupidties, they blame everybody else.  And we can't even feel sorry for the likes of JRK or Uncensored.


----------



## JRK

Patandtom said:


> What did  the American citizen's get on 9-11-01.No warning,No trial just death.I don't have any sympathy for Qaddafi or Saddam.AMEN!!


welcome


----------



## JakeStarkey

JRK said:


> Patandtom said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did  the American citizen's get on 9-11-01.No warning,No trial just death.I don't have any sympathy for Qaddafi or Saddam.AMEN!!
> 
> 
> 
> welcome
Click to expand...


No American has sympathy for either of them.  Every American feels sad for the violence done to the Constitution by the bushies.


----------



## marcell

I'm sorry, I have a correction: Kadaffi got a bullet, Saddam got hang. This is it. Or do u really think that it was a fair trial?


----------

