- Joined
- Jan 31, 2010
- Messages
- 31,645
- Reaction score
- 7,598
- Location
- Canada, Costa Rica
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
And you think that's all the response will be? Did you miss the bit where she said the US will work with the Libyans to bring the terrorists to justice?
Paul
I am sure in some way we will hear how Obama is not responsible for anything concerning the lack of security, or lack of action here, however, Bush on the other hand is still to blame.....*facepalm
According to a report I heard on NPR there were no US military present. It was agreed that Libya was to provide security....That was such poor planning.
So she will work with the Libyans to bring the terrorists to justice.
Strong words indeed. And pointless.
This is the same woman who asked “How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?”
She is dumber then a fence post and needs replacing ASAP.
Really? And you have evidence of this?
Have you been connecting the dots again?
Election promises aside. Obama has found a quick withdrawal was not possible. The two invasions sucked in many border regions, and Obama is dealing with the consequences. Without being in possession of the facts I'd hazard a guess its costing less now Iraq has declined. That said, the additional cost of fighting with the policy adopted from Iraq (the surge) and the additions previously mentioned, please tell?
Paul
They were not very bright.What does that say about the population that voted her into office?
Paul
I've kept it simple.
Paul
Ignorance for far right wingers will prevail in this conversation, in the sense it will not win the argument, but will remain the loudest rhetoric...
This is not a rebuttal, nor an invitation to conversation.
This is simply a statement of mockery of your position.
There's very little the President can do about this situation, be him (D) or (R) or Bush or Obama or Romney or Reagan, unless of course you're suggesting he order the US military to march through Middle Eastern capitals mowing down protesters by machine gun fire as they go...
Those who are reasonable among us realize this.
Those of you who are not, will not.
This is the way of things.
Nothing I, nor anyone else, with our words may convince you otherwise, that this is not the sole fault of the President of the United States, a position that requires ignorance beyond comprehension...
[COLOR="#800000"]One we still have troops in Iraq[/COLOR]. 2. We have the largest Embassy in the World in Iraq. Costs are down from War level. But costs are still there.....Correct?
I agree. That said, I thought you had the figure?
Then again add Libya. Then the bombing in Yemen, Somolia, and Pakistan. Then he has sent an Additional Fleet to the Persian Gulf. Plus moved one inside Club Med. Where do you think the Two Destroyers are coming from. Plus he still has a ship to cover Egypt. Whom are still Rioting Btw!
Obama is reacting to the situation in the region. What would you have him do?
To concentrate on Iraq. If Petraeus and his command had their way Troop levels (surge 2007) would have been maintained for many, many more years. He was advocating the additional tens of years +. Obama drew the force down, and switched the tactic to Afghanistan thus we now have an end date in sight. Anyone who thought Obama would have curtailed any earlier, misunderstood the complexity.
Paul
Yes, indeed.
And arrogant, you missed out arrogant, believing we'd all like to be Americans if we could be.
[
I agree. That said, I thought you had the figure?
Obama is reacting the situation in the region. What would you have him do?
To concentrate on Iraq. If Petraeus and his command had their way Troop levels (surge 2007) would have been maintained for many, many more years. He was advocating the additional tens of years +. Obama drew the force down, and switched the tactic to Afghanistan thus we now have an end date in sight. Anyone who thought Obama would have curtailed any earlier, misunderstood the complexity.
Paul
Yes.....but did you forget everything Petraeus was talking about, was due to what? Who Wanted to stay and do Nation building and work the infrastructure. Let me give you a hint. It was the NEO's Con and LIB. Kerry, Lieberman, Grahman, McCain's Bills.
Btw way who helped Biden draw up the 3 state Solution for Iraq? As we know Joseph just isn't the brightest bulb in the shed!
To concentrate on Iraq. If Petraeus and his command had their way Troop levels (surge 2007) would have been maintained for many, many more years. He was advocating the additional tens of years +. Obama drew the force down, and switched the tactic to Afghanistan thus we now have an end date in sight. Anyone who thought Obama would have curtailed any earlier, misunderstood the complexity.
Paul
Of course the Taliban and Al-Qaeda also have an end date in sight.
Do you know the logistical difficulty of moving a standing Army?
At one time the idea of war was to win.
Please give me a definition of winning?
Now it seems that there will be a lot of money spent, many lives lost, and during the killings and the lost treasure an announcement is made to the world when you will pack it in and go home. And all for no particular reason, apart from a fabricated 'timeline'.
What would be the alternative? Stay in Afghanistan for many, many more years with the same result? You do realize NO foreign power has EVER conquered Afghanistan, right?
Paul
Do you know the logistical difficulty of moving a standing Army?
Please give me a definition of winning?
What would be the alternative? Stay in Afghanistan for many, many more years with the same result? You do realize NO foreign power has EVER conquered Afghanistan, right?
Paul
Well you do realize Obama has committed us to Afghanistan for another 10 yrs after we leave.....Right?
I'd go further. Totally incompetent, all things considered.
Paul
Well you do realize Obama has committed us to Afghanistan for another 10 yrs after we leave.....Right?
You mean even after he LIED and said he wouldn't? WOW...
well you do realize obama has committed us to afghanistan for another 10 yrs after we leave.....right?
Of course I realize that. End of combat troops means simply that. Not an end to the presence of American troops. But what is your point? Are you an isolationist? (in the purest sense)
Paul
Fools? Perhaps not. But the wiring in their brains would have to be malfunctioning somehow. This is not an unknown phenomenon, and Obama and his people are probably quite aware of it.
Making losers feel like winners is a familiar concept in Las Vegas and elsewhere because it influences that part of the brain which defines happiness on terms not related to reality. It's a concept that has been studied for over 100 years, and quite familiar to the Communists and Nazis, and most likely the Fascists as well.
Well you do realize Obama has committed us to Afghanistan for another 10 yrs after we leave.....Right?
Not bad for someone who was soft on terror and was going to "cut and run" as soon as he was elected, according to his political enemies.
Of course I realize that. End of combat troops means simply that. Not an end to the presence of American troops. But what is your point? Are you an isolationist? (in the purest sense)
Paul
No I am not an Isolationist. Also you asked for a winning Definition to War. Example.....any Country defeated. Becomes the 51st State of the United States. Land and all that is in it!
What is Best in Life!
Not bad for someone who was soft on terror and was going to "cut and run" as soon as he was elected, according to his political enemies.
Course not good with 4 Embassies and a Consulate under fire either.....huh?
Course not good with 4 Embassies and a Consulate under fire either.....huh?
In Afganistan?
I get confused when people suddenly change the subject.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?