Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Again, lack of substance. So, let's say that single Taliban leader could do as he stated. Why do you think the United States rejected the offer?My link was to the Washington Post.Most likely rejected for lack of substance. Sunni conspiracy theorists will, no doubt, be bitching about it for as long as they've been screaming "Death to Israel!
Google it, and you will find that many papers reported the story.
Fact is, Bush the idiot rejected the offer.
So we spent a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives, destroyed a country, and took 10 years to find and execute 1 man. ....
It's anti-American when all you do is slam the United States without ever posting the actions of the USSR, Islamic terrorists, corrupt regimes, lack of European support/over reliance on letting the US do it, etc.Because you supply only anti-American rhetoric and not a shred of evidence.How the hell is that a conspiracy theory?
Do I think most Saudis want the US to leave? Yes, almost certainly they do. Kuwaitis I don't know, probably a lot of them do.
Did Libyans support the US, probably not. Some will, some won't. Do you think there are Americans who wouldn't want to see Putin take down Trump? Sure there are. You can find all sorts of interests at play in every country.
Ah, so, saying the truth is "anti-American", right, got it.
Or maybe you're just trying to bully people into thinking like you do. Then you want evidence. Dude, I'm more than happy to supply evidence to people who are willing to debate.
WWll was the last justified war America fought in. We were attacked and mobilized to defend ourselves, and punish the enemy.
1) Guerrilla warfare is more difficult to fight than battles where the lines are clearly drawn.WWll was the last justified war America fought in. We were attacked and mobilized to defend ourselves, and punish the enemy.
And defeated two military superpowers of the day in just 4 years.
We've been in the ME now some 15 years fighting what amounts to nothing more than a glorified street gang with no end in sight.
Something is very wrong with this picture.
It's anti-American when all you do is slam the United States without ever posting the actions of the USSR, Islamic terrorists, corrupt regimes, lack of European support/over reliance on letting the US do it, etc.Because you supply only anti-American rhetoric and not a shred of evidence.How the hell is that a conspiracy theory?
Do I think most Saudis want the US to leave? Yes, almost certainly they do. Kuwaitis I don't know, probably a lot of them do.
Did Libyans support the US, probably not. Some will, some won't. Do you think there are Americans who wouldn't want to see Putin take down Trump? Sure there are. You can find all sorts of interests at play in every country.
Ah, so, saying the truth is "anti-American", right, got it.
Or maybe you're just trying to bully people into thinking like you do. Then you want evidence. Dude, I'm more than happy to supply evidence to people who are willing to debate.
It's the end of the world as we know it
It's anti-American when all you do is slam the United States without ever posting the actions of the USSR, Islamic terrorists, corrupt regimes, lack of European support/over reliance on letting the US do it, etc.Because you supply only anti-American rhetoric and not a shred of evidence.How the hell is that a conspiracy theory?
Do I think most Saudis want the US to leave? Yes, almost certainly they do. Kuwaitis I don't know, probably a lot of them do.
Did Libyans support the US, probably not. Some will, some won't. Do you think there are Americans who wouldn't want to see Putin take down Trump? Sure there are. You can find all sorts of interests at play in every country.
Ah, so, saying the truth is "anti-American", right, got it.
Or maybe you're just trying to bully people into thinking like you do. Then you want evidence. Dude, I'm more than happy to supply evidence to people who are willing to debate.
Almost 30 years and still going...North Korea just shot a missile toward Japan Assad is using chemical weapons to kill children. A war could break out at any time.
We need soldiers to fight these battles. I encourage my fellow American Trump supporters to enlist in the military in order to restore order and protect American interests.
Please state your intentions (or lack thereof) of enlisting, in this thread.
God bless America.
no glory in war.
Yep, fuck war!
I am going to join a peace protest if Trump gets us into a war with North Korea.
This is probably the most peaceful time in the past 4,000 years on this planet...
All of our enemies are piss ants.
Yes douchebag, liberals serve.
Yes douchebag, liberals serve.
Bullshit.
The few moonbats I was forced to keep alive were self serving pains in the ass.
They wanted college money, or whatever benefits they could get. They bitched when they had to work. Cried incessantly, and generally interfered with productivity.
Then there's parasitic traitors like bowe bergdahl and bradley manning who joined in order to undermine the army.
Only after the US, meaning the Republicans, staunchly refused to lead the way.It's anti-American when all you do is slam the United States without ever posting the actions of the USSR, Islamic terrorists, corrupt regimes, lack of European support/over reliance on letting the US do it, etc.Because you supply only anti-American rhetoric and not a shred of evidence.How the hell is that a conspiracy theory?
Do I think most Saudis want the US to leave? Yes, almost certainly they do. Kuwaitis I don't know, probably a lot of them do.
Did Libyans support the US, probably not. Some will, some won't. Do you think there are Americans who wouldn't want to see Putin take down Trump? Sure there are. You can find all sorts of interests at play in every country.
Ah, so, saying the truth is "anti-American", right, got it.
Or maybe you're just trying to bully people into thinking like you do. Then you want evidence. Dude, I'm more than happy to supply evidence to people who are willing to debate.
Except it was the french and British who pushed for it, and they both sent in planes...
Only after the US, meaning the Republicans, staunchly refused to lead the way.It's anti-American when all you do is slam the United States without ever posting the actions of the USSR, Islamic terrorists, corrupt regimes, lack of European support/over reliance on letting the US do it, etc.Because you supply only anti-American rhetoric and not a shred of evidence.How the hell is that a conspiracy theory?
Do I think most Saudis want the US to leave? Yes, almost certainly they do. Kuwaitis I don't know, probably a lot of them do.
Did Libyans support the US, probably not. Some will, some won't. Do you think there are Americans who wouldn't want to see Putin take down Trump? Sure there are. You can find all sorts of interests at play in every country.
Ah, so, saying the truth is "anti-American", right, got it.
Or maybe you're just trying to bully people into thinking like you do. Then you want evidence. Dude, I'm more than happy to supply evidence to people who are willing to debate.
Except it was the french and British who pushed for it, and they both sent in planes...
You, obviously, supported the Republicans in this even though I doubt you will admit it, but I supported the US being involved with our allies to support the rebels and the regime that supported terrorism. Same goes for supporting secular rebels in Syria.
Remember this? Maybe you think it's "fake news" or a "false flag operation"? Maybe you think they all deserved to die because it was a US airline.
Maybe you think this Jew deserved to die
He's not. Why are you dodging the questions?Since when has Obama been a Republican?
How much do you want to change history to fit your agenda? It doesn't seem to matter that the C-in-C was Obama.
Did my combat tour in 05.
He's not. Why are you dodging the questions?Since when has Obama been a Republican?
How much do you want to change history to fit your agenda? It doesn't seem to matter that the C-in-C was Obama.
How am I changing history? Are you disagreeing that President Obama wanted to become involved in both Libya and Syria but the "Just say 'NO'" Republicans were against it?
Translation: I dodged your question so I wouldn't look like a dumb hypocrite.Your question is bullshit, I don't need to dodge it.He's not. Why are you dodging the questions?
How am I changing history? Are you disagreeing that President Obama wanted to become involved in both Libya and Syria but the "Just say 'NO'" Republicans were against it?
Britain and France, both had right wing governments, wanted to go into Syria. The Republicans also wanted to go in, and for whatever reason, Obama went in too.
Translation: I dodged your question so I wouldn't look like a dumb hypocrite.Your question is bullshit, I don't need to dodge it.He's not. Why are you dodging the questions?
How am I changing history? Are you disagreeing that President Obama wanted to become involved in both Libya and Syria but the "Just say 'NO'" Republicans were against it?
Britain and France, both had right wing governments, wanted to go into Syria. The Republicans also wanted to go in, and for whatever reason, Obama went in too.
France led the way. Quite a change from your standard "The US is ruining everything" claim, isn't it?
Oh, BTW:
Obama's Illegal War in Libya
IT has now been over three months since the first NATO bombs fell on Libya, yet President Obama has failed to request Congressional approval for military action, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973. The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent that could allow future administrations to wage war at their convenience — free of legislative checks and balances....
....Mr. Obama is creating a decisive and dangerous precedent for the next commander in chief, who is unlikely to have the Harvard Law Review on his résumé.
From a moral perspective, there is a significant difference between authorizing torture and continuing a bombing campaign that may save thousands of Libyans from slaughter by Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi. But from a legal viewpoint, Mr. Obama is setting an even worse precedent....
Opinion | Obama admits that his handling of the Libya war was his worst mistake – but not that it was unconstitutional
President Barack Obama said the worst mistake of his presidency was a lack of planning for the aftermath of the 2011 toppling of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.
“Probably failing to plan for the day after what I think was the right thing to do in intervening in Libya,” he said in a Fox News interview aired Sunday.
In a profile published last month in The Atlantic, the President told author Jeffrey Goldberg that British Prime Minister David Cameron became “distracted by a range of other things” after the operation. Cameron, along with former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, took the brunt of Obama’s criticism. Although Obama said he thinks the intervention went as well as it could, he views Libya today as a “mess.”
Privately, according to the article, he refers to the troubled state as a “sh*t show.”
In the Atlantic interview, Obama spoke about the Libya intervention at greater length, and argued that much of the blame belongs to the British and French, who failed to follow through as Obama expected them to. But, obviously, US policy was also at fault, since the president should not have been surprised by the possibility that the allies might cut and run if it became convenient for them to do so, and the the US did not make much effort to prevent it.
Obama’s willingness to even partially admit an important mistake (something few political leaders do) is commendable. But it is unfortunate that he still refuses to admit that the Libya war was illegal, as well as badly managed. Because the administration failed to get congressional authorization for the conflict, the war violated both the Constitution (which requires congressional authorization to initiate war), and the 1973 War Powers Act. Then-Senator Obama put it well back in 2007, when he stated that “[t]he President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” That describes the Libya war to a T.
The administration’s argument that the Libya conflict was not a real war (or even a case of “armed hostilities” covered by the War Powers Act) because “U.S. operations [in Libya] do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces,” does not even pass the laugh test. You don’t have to be a legal scholar to understand that launching numerous air strikes for the purpose of overthrowing a government qualifies as war, and certainly as “armed hostilities.”
The illegality of the war was not unrelated to the resulting “sh*t show,” which Obama himself now decries. Because the administration did not bother to get congressional support and otherwise secure a broad public consensus in favor of the intervention, it sought to minimize political risk by ending the US military role as quickly as possible. That predictably created a power vacuum, which has since been exploited by radical Islamists and others who may be as bad or even worse than the brutal Gadhafi regime we helped overthrow. If Obama had obeyed the Constitution and the War Powers Act, we might either have stayed out of Libya entirely, or made a larger-scale effort more commensurate to the task at hand. Either would likely have been better than the administration’s strategy of intervening while minimizing political exposure by pretending it wasn’t a real war.
These painful lessons of the Libya war are directly relevant to the administration’s current similarly illegal war against ISIS. It too violates both the Constitution and the War Powers Act – and for much the same reasons as the Libya intervention. Although the fighting has now gone on for almost two years and has expanded to include US ground forces, the administration has so far failed to get the legally required congressional authorization. Last year, it did briefly float a badly flawed draft authorization for the Use of Military Force that got little traction with either Democrats or Republicans. Obama also passed up an opportunity to legalize the war and bolster political support for it by invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
In the Atlantic interview, the president suggested that winning the war against ISIS is “his most urgent priority for the remainder of his presidency.” But so far, at least, his handling of the conflict has disturbing parallels to the flawed strategy adopted in Libya. In both cases, the administration deployed enough force to get the US involved in the conflict, but not enough to ensure success. Both failures to secure a broad political consensus in favor of the intervention created incentives to minimize short-term political risk by strictly limiting the scope of US action. That has the virtue of minimizing US casualties; but it also increases the risk of failure.
With both Libya and ISIS, flouting the Constitution was not only bad in itself, but has also greatly increased the risk of a tragic outcome on the ground, one that is likely to cost the lives of many innocent people. Sadly, the resulting “mess,” as Obama calls it, may well be left for the next president to clean up.
