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.
Excuse me if I misinterpreted your position. It appears you like, at least 60% of the time, war in general, no matter which party is behind it..
You're not a hypocrite...you're a warmonger.
And btw, Afghanistan, like it or not, is now Obama's war..
What's with applying percentages? I can manipulate those percentages by going back further in history and adding more wars to the list. What the hell does that prove? Not a damn thing.
I suggest you have a gross misunderstanding of the term 'warmonger' if you believe supporting it when it's right and opposing it when it's wrong falls under that definition.
As for whose war Afghanistan is, you're free to call it Obama's war, but that doesn't make it true. It was waged by George W. Bush, so it's his war. Obama is in there trying to make it successful. Sadly, it's probably going to descend into chaos anyway. That still doesn't mean we were wrong to go in there and root out the perpetrators of a massive terrorist attack against us on our soil. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, so why you're trying to use it as a weapon against me is a mystery.
President Obama has not created the challenges he's faced squarely in office. Those were others' doings. I admire his moving toward them in the spirit of making the world a better place for everyone involved.
What's with applying percentages? I can manipulate those percentages by going back further in history and adding more wars to the list. What the hell does that prove? Not a damn thing.
I suggest you have a gross misunderstanding of the term 'warmonger' if you believe supporting it when it's right and opposing it when it's wrong falls under that definition.
As for whose war Afghanistan is, you're free to call it Obama's war, but that doesn't make it true. It was waged by George W. Bush, so it's his war. Obama is in there trying to make it successful. Sadly, it's probably going to descend into chaos anyway. That still doesn't mean we were wrong to go in there and root out the perpetrators of a massive terrorist attack against us on our soil. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, so why you're trying to use it as a weapon against me is a mystery.
I've already supplied the definition of warmonger, but here it is again:
noun
a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war
Looks to me like you fit that definition just fine..
As for attacking you...you brought that upon yourself by suggesting that those who would no longer support Obama because of Libya were "ignorant" and "shortsighted"
President Obama has not created the challenges he's faced squarely in office. Those were others' doings. I admire his moving toward them in the spirit of making the world a better place for everyone involved.
Looks to me like you fit that definition just fine..
As for attacking you...you brought that upon yourself by suggesting that those who would no longer support Obama because of Libya were "ignorant" and "shortsighted"
Mystery cleared up?
I see, so pointing out that deciding not to vote for President Obama a year and a half from now, based on current military actions you may disagree with, is both ignorant (as in uninformed) and shortsighted (as in, we don't even have an outcome yet), is akin to applying a label to me that you think is insulting or hurtful. Got ya.
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.