Discussion Forums > Politics
2012 US Presidential Election
Nikkoru:
Libya was closer to Kosovo than Iraq in my view, although all military interventions have a similar ethos to them. There is definite hypocrisy -- if you accept the reasons they've given for Libya as a justification for use of force -- when dealing with Syria and Bahrain... that's endemic to American foreign policy, sadly.
Still, hypocritical or not, Libya was pretty cheap and easily achieved success in its mission -- if Iraq went down so well do you really think anyone would've cared, save some teeth-grinding leftists and libertarian intellectuals?
5Cats:
--- Quote from: Monkeyfinger on November 03, 2012, 12:07:33 AM ---Careful 5cats, challenge a liberal's way of thinking and you will be subject to incessant foam-at-the-mouth accusations and insults.
--- End quote ---
Oh I hear that! All one needs to do is "not agree 100%" and you're in for name-calling like it was kindergarden! One need look no further than this thread for evidence!
--- Quote ---So in what category would you put "end the war in Iraq", Monkeyfinger?
--- End quote ---
@Burk: Considering he followed Bush's Timeline to the day? I'd call it: "Bush Ended The War In Iraq"
But, as @monkeyfinger pointed out, Obama didn't keep his promise to end it in2009, so: broken.
--- Quote ---And I'll take diplomacy over saber-rattling...
--- End quote ---
@zherok: Invading Libya is "diplomacy" now? Interesting...
Might have been OK if BHO didn't violate the US Constitution while doing it, eh?
And criticising Romney for what he MIGHT do, while ignoreing the fact that Obama ALREADY DID DO IT is... very liberal of you!
--- Quote ---USA didn't start the war in Libya...
--- End quote ---
@Burk: No one claims "Obama started it" that's typical misdirection/strawman!
Obama went to war, period! Invaded Libya, period! Didn't follow the CotUS, period!
Do TRY to stay on topic dear boy...
"I didn't break into that house and steal stuff, someone else broke in! (and then I stole stuff)" Ah! So innocent!
@Nikkoru: For Iraq II the Media Frenzy began even before the first shot was fired. The "protestors" were out in droves from day one. Bush could have won the war, without a single death, and had the troops home by Christmas (a famous WW1 promise!) and they STILL would have crucified him!
Obama? The media = supports! Protests = none! Funny that...
Burkingam:
--- Quote from: 5Cats on November 03, 2012, 05:46:40 PM ---
--- Quote ---So in what category would you put "end the war in Iraq", Monkeyfinger?
--- End quote ---
@Burk: Considering he followed Bush's Timeline to the day? I'd call it: "Bush Ended The War In Iraq"
But, as @monkeyfinger pointed out, Obama didn't keep his promise to end it in2009, so: broken.
--- End quote ---
I was responding to Monkeyfinger, not you. There is a fundamental difference what he is arguing for and what you said. Monkeyfinger said that all of Obama's policies are either bad, unimportant or broken. You said they were all about bush being bad. Those are completely different statements and hence they don't warren the same rebuttals.
Here is, again, my rebuttal to YOUR statement:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
--- Quote from: 5Cats on November 03, 2012, 05:46:40 PM ---
--- Quote ---USA didn't start the war in Libya...
--- End quote ---
@Burk: No one claims "Obama started it" that's typical misdirection/strawman!
Obama went to war, period! Invaded Libya, period! Didn't follow the CotUS, period!
Do TRY to stay on topic dear boy...
--- End quote ---
Acehigh is calling Obama an hypocrite for participating to the war in Libya even though he opposed the war in Iraq and promised to end it. I'm pointing out that they are not the same thing. Do you understand what hypocrisy is? It's acting against what you profess to promote. Since the roles of USA in the wars in Libya and the wars in Iraq were fundamentally different, there is no hypocrisy in supporting one while opposing the other. There in no strawman to be found.
You you still don't understand what I'm saying maybe you should try to read me a few times to see if you manage to assimilate such complicated concepts.
zherok:
--- Quote from: 5Cats on November 03, 2012, 05:46:40 PM ---And criticising Romney for what he MIGHT do, while ignoreing the fact that Obama ALREADY DID DO IT is... very liberal of you!
--- End quote ---
He's hardly perfect, but a better alternative than Romney by far. Conservatives are fixated on the narrative that he's the worst president ever, but it only works in their head. It's not exactly hard to think of a far worse one even in my lifetime, nevermind ever. And while we're not ignoring stuff, remember which party decided making Obama a one term president was the most pressing priority.
And I agree, we should all be wary at taking Romney at his word. Feel free to fault Obama on his record, but don't pretend Romney gets a pass on what he says he wants to do. "Anyone but Obama" is not enough.
--- Quote ---Bush could have won the war, without a single death, and had the troops home by Christmas (a famous WW1 promise!) and they STILL would have crucified him!
--- End quote ---
Maybe because we shouldn't have been there in the first place? Bush used momentum from 9/11 to start a war with a country that had nothing to do with it. The countries with actual connections to the perpetrators were secondary priorities at best.
5Cats:
--- Quote ---Do you understand what hypocrisy is?
--- End quote ---
No @Burkie, and I don't know what sarcasm is either! Please, do educate me! And this thing you humans call... kissing...
--- Quote ---Since the roles of USA in the wars in Libya and the wars in Iraq were fundamentally different, there is no hypocrisy in supporting one while opposing the other.
--- End quote ---
LOLZ! Gosh you're funny! Lets lok at all 3 wars and who supported what, shall we?
Afghan: Bush Prez, Nato run, No UN, Congress approved, Obama supports.
Iraq: Bush Prez, UN sanctioned, Congress approved, Obama opposes.
Libya: Obama Prez, Nato run, No UN, NO Congress (in violation of the CotUS) Obama = not his fault.
So Nato runs the Afghan war, Bush is to blame.
Nato runs the Libya war, Obama is NOT to blame!
It must be... The Constitution's fault!
It doesn't matter WHO started it, Obama sent the missiles, bombers and troops! It's HIS responsibility ALONE because he didn't even get Congressional approval!
Srsly, you be trollin?
--- Quote ---...remember which party decided making Obama a one term president was the most pressing priority.
--- End quote ---
That's RIGHT @zherok! Because in 2004 the Democrats wanted Bush to win! It's the opposition party's DUTY to re-elect the OTHER SIDE'S candidate!
I plumb forgot! How silly to think they'd want their candidate to win! Those stupid Republicans! The Democrats would NEVER do that!
End sarcasm...
--- Quote ---And I agree, we should all be wary at taking Romney at his word.
--- End quote ---
Hell yes we should be wary! He's a politician! Our job is to HOLD HIM to his word.
--- Quote ---Feel free to fault Obama on his record
--- End quote ---
That's why he's got to GO! His record is Ghod-awful. He lied, his party violated the Constitution, HE violated it! Your children have 6+ trillion MORE debt on their heads than 4 years ago: Obama promised it would be (apx) 1.2 max! That alone should boot him from office.
Obama HIMSELF said he should only be a one-term President if he failed to fix the economy in 3 years, and he has failed by ANY measure.
--- Quote ---Maybe because we shouldn't have been there in the first place?
--- End quote ---
The reasons for "enforcing the UN articles of cease-fire" on Iraq take a looong time to explain and have NOTHING to do with 'weapons of mass destruction' being found or not.
Another time, or a PM, but this is an election thread and even I don't want to stray THAT far off topic! Lolz!
"Bad Obama Bad Obama, what you gonna do? What you gonna do when they vote for Romney?"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version