Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You were demanding No Fly Zone, before you went upside down for an argument (a person with little shame would at least shut up, but you went on). What do you think a No Fly Zone entails? Appealing to the insanity, that you started supporting when the decision you were crying for was made, from a high chair?
barack hussein obama - the president who lost a moderate ME by giving it to the most radical segments of islam.
Your post is disingenuous, but that is to be expected with you.
1. It's not like the people of Egypt, Libya, Syria, and all these other people called up Obama's guys and asked them first if it would be ok for Washington if they would start rebelling. It just happened, and Obama's administration had to respond - just like any other administration in power would have had to do. You can safely bet, in fact, that they're really nervous and didn't want it to come down this way - they would rather have an orderly transition that they can control, but again...nobody is asking them. So it's not like they can now 100% rig what will happen in Egypt. It's not a sovereign nation, last I checked.
2. That said, you can argue that the administration could have handled some things better. But that requires more direct intervention. Didn't you get mad when we had "Obama's war" in Libya? So what do you want them to do - militarily intervene in all of these countries to protect the status quo or let things play out as they will?
3. Given your hands-off argument here with respect to the Middle East, I take it that you would now argue that Bush made a major foreign policy blunder by kicking off a decade-long war in Iraq, a county that never harbored Bin Laden, right? You can't have it both ways and say it was great policy to unseat Hussein but not Ghadafi - and neither can the liberals in saying the opposite, by the way.
Since Obama took no direct action with regard to Egypt, (e.g. didn't send a military force) how does sanrene lay the result at Obama's feet -- except for sanrene's knee-jerk Obama-hate?
We all know that had Obama did exactly the opposite of what sanrene criticizes Obama for doing, sanrene would be criticizing that policy too.
sanrene is like Newt Gingrich in that respect:
Asked before Obama intervened in Libya, “what would you do about Libya?” Gingrich responded,
Quote:
Provide help to the Libyan rebels on top of the no-fly zone: “This is a moment to get rid of him [Qadaffi]. Do it. Get it over with.”
Then, when Obama did provide help to the Libyan rebels and a no-fly zone, Gingrich did a complete turn-around and said, "I would not have intervened."
Is sanrene saying that the U.S. should have sent troops to bolster an unelected dictator that was stealing from the country?
You were demanding No Fly Zone, before you went upside down for an argument (a person with little shame would at least shut up, but you went on). What do you think a No Fly Zone entails? Appealing to the insanity, that you started supporting when the decision you were crying for was made, from a high chair?
Again, BEFORE the radical elements of the rebels were known and way before obama actually did anything. Remember, he sat and diddled for a while before making the decision to go to war.
And now we have the results of those decisions. Disaster for the US, disaster for Israel....real good news for Iran and the radical islamists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
Your post is disingenuous, but that is to be expected with you.
1. It's not like the people of Egypt, Libya, Syria, and all these other people called up Obama's guys and asked them first if it would be ok for Washington if they would start rebelling. It just happened, and Obama's administration had to respond - just like any other administration in power would have had to do. You can safely bet, in fact, that they're really nervous and didn't want it to come down this way - they would rather have an orderly transition that they can control, but again...nobody is asking them. So it's not like they can now 100% rig what will happen in Egypt. It's not a sovereign nation, last I checked.
Again, the warnings before he made the push for mubarak to get out "yesterday" were plenty, predicting exactly what has happened.
2. That said, you can argue that the administration could have handled some things better. But that requires more direct intervention. Didn't you get mad when we had "Obama's war" in Libya? So what do you want them to do - militarily intervene in all of these countries to protect the status quo or let things play out as they will?
Well, that USED to be the position of the Left, at least when Iraq was in play, but no more. Obama stated there was NO WAY he would invade/go to war unless US national security was at risk. Where was the risk?
3. Given your hands-off argument here with respect to the Middle East, I take it that you would now argue that Bush made a major foreign policy blunder by kicking off a decade-long war in Iraq, a county that never harbored Bin Laden, right? You can't have it both ways and say it was great policy to unseat Hussein but not Ghadafi - and neither can the liberals in saying the opposite, by the way.
But they are. Their position is 180 degrees from when Bush was in office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
So in sanrene-English, Germany did invade the UK in 1940. Mmmkay, then.
Seriously?
You consider that a straw worth grasping for?
[/LEFT]
Um....you set the criteria...no boots on the ground. The number matters very little and likely there were even more operating covertly.
But bombing a nation is not a war, just like sending boots on the grouond is not an invasion - pure obama speak.
We have obama's blundering foreign policy to thank for the uber radicalization of ME.
Um....you set the criteria...no boots on the ground.
Seriously? The troops were in Tripoli because the US had been invited to re-open the US embassy. There's a Marine detachment guarding the US Embassy in Paris - did the US invade France? You're being flat-out ridiculous now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
