I fail to see the problem. Obama said he is against unjust wars, right? Does that mean he is anti-war to you and Driftin'? Because i never got that from him. i never once heard him say that he is against all wars. Obama said he will end the war in Iraq and beef up the war in Afghanistan. What's the problem there? Where did he say he would do otherwise?
I've boatloads of people saying how anti war Obama is. He's all about diplomacy they cried not war.
With regards to the public in general, it's highly deceptive at best.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I've boatloads of people saying how anti war Obama is. He's all about diplomacy they cried not war.
With regards to the public in general, it's highly deceptive at best.
Again, when did Obama say he was anti-war?
Obama has always (as long as it has been an issue) been about bolstering up the war on terror in Afghanistan. I think that is the right move. That is a just war.
Public vibe now, that is the "angle" you are using now. Laughs dude.
I remember hearing loooots of people say Obama was 'anti-war' but I guess in order for them to justify being lied to they create this fantasy where no one thought this or thought only considered his 'change' to be simply from a -R to a -D or 'governing from the center' instead of the fairy tales pushed during campaign time.
You know, kinda like how so many liberals were against the patriot act for years until they found out Obama voted to renew it 3 times then suddenly they had no problem with it.
'and I can't imagine why you wouldn't welcome any change, my brother'
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
Obama has always (as long as it has been an issue) been about bolstering up the war on terror in Afghanistan. I think that is the right move. That is a just war.
Can you please explain for me,
using observable examples,
why the United States has the necessity and right to further a regional war by engaging Afghanistan militarily?
I don't understand the rationale, or the validity behind the assertion that putting US troops in Afghanistan is just, right, or necessary.
What resolutions, international laws, or treaties has Afghanistan violated, and what clear and imminent danger to our republic do they pose?
Again, i'm not asking for rhetoric, ideology, or opinion,
i'm asking for empirical real world examples of demonstrable harm emanating from the sovereign nation state of Afghanistan.
What right are you claiming we have to invade and maintain a presence there?
I'm sure there is some valid reason for further engaging Afghanistan, i just truly fail to see it.
If we have already installed a Pro-Western central government in Afghanistan, and if they are experiencing internal violence directed in opposition to this government, isn't that:
a. partly the fault of Western powers, who helped create that government
b. an internal security concern, thus the prerogative and responsibility of "THEIR" government to resolve?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Obama has always (as long as it has been an issue) been about bolstering up the war on terror in Afghanistan. I think that is the right move. That is a just war.
Public vibe now, that is the "angle" you are using now. Laughs dude.
I think you shown me that you are incapable of thinking outside yourself on a lot of issues that you don't want to understand aside from what you already believe within the confines of your own mind to be true.
You apply your thoughts as everyone's thoughts and claim you are justified in that based on what you believe.
Now you even go so far as to claim Obama is/was pro war, and that everyone saw this
unbelievable.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Can you please explain for me,
using observable examples,
why the United States has the necessity and right to further a regional war by engaging Afghanistan militarily?
I don't understand the rationale, or the validity behind the assertion that putting US troops in Afghanistan is just, right, or necessary.
What resolutions, international laws, or treaties has Afghanistan violated, and what clear and imminent danger to our republic do they pose?
Again, i'm not asking for rhetoric, ideology, or opinion,
i'm asking for empirical real world examples of demonstrable harm eminating from the sovereign nation state of Afghanistan.
What right are you claiming we have to invade and maintain a presence there?
I'm sure there is some valid reason for further engaging Afghanistan, i just truly fail to see it.
But you do see that the Iraq war was unjust, unneeded, and unwarranted, and separate from the original war on terror, right?
On Afghanistan; the Taliban is on the rise again there. I guess we never did finish up over there like we thought we did 6 years ago when we took our eye off the war on terror and focused on a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. We need to be fighting the Taliban, Al Queda, and Osama Bin Laden's group of tyrants. Be that where ever it is.
I am not a general in the military, nor do I get intelligence reports sent to me, but i am firm believer in the war on terror, and can plainly see the difference in the war on Iraq and the war on terror. Unfortunately, GW has done a spectacular job and blurring the lines between them in latter years since the onset by allowing Iraq to become a breeding ground for all those who hate us in the US.
I think you shown me that you are incapable of thinking outside yourself on a lot of issues that you don't want to understand aside from what you already believe within the confines of your own mind to be true.
You apply your thoughts as everyone's thoughts and claim you are justified in that based on what you believe.
Now you even go so far as to claim Obama is/was pro war, and that everyone saw this
unbelievable.
I never said he was pro war, and I never said he was anti-war. Just because someone is not anti-war, does not make them pro war. War is a necessary evil that our society accepts as a realism in this world.
Odd, you shown me the same things about your closed mindedness. You have yet to spew anything thought out from your own mind that makes any sense at all without referring to obamacrimes.com. But keep trying! Maybe a new angle would suite you better. Try that!
Funny how you have yet to even remotely answer any of my questions to prove and further your anti-American Obama claims.
I never said he was pro war, and I never said he was anti-war. Just because someone is not anti-war, does not make them pro war. War is a necessary evil that our society accepts as a realism in this world.
Odd, you shown me the same things about your closed mindedness. You have yet to spew anything thought out from your own mind that makes any sense at all without referring to obamacrimes.com. But keep trying! Maybe a new angle would suite you better. Try that!
Funny how you have yet to even remotely answer any of my questions to prove and further your anti-American Obama claims.
I pose questions for discussion...you froth absolutes. Big difference.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
I pose questions for discussion...you froth absolutes. Big difference.
So, you don't actually want to participate in the discussions you initiate? You just pose the questions? But, you never want to show any proof to substantiate your claims? Or you only want to talk to people who agree with you?
I state my own opinion. You site obamacrimes.com. Huge difference. I have been able to disprove your unsubstantiated fears. You ahve not been able to counter anything I have said and instead resort back to calling me blind partisan.
So, you don't actually want to participate in the discussions you initiate? You just pose the questions? But, you never want to show any proof to substantiate your claims? Or you only want to talk to people who agree with you?
I state my own opinion. You site obamacrimes.com. Huge difference. I have been able to disprove your unsubstantiated fears. You ahve not been able to counter anything I have said and instead resort back to calling me blind partisan.
Well you know what...you are blind partisan if you don't know the details of something for yourself, but just follow along with the crowd as though you do.
I prefer to think about things, and not follow the crowd despite not knowing and fully understanding the details. You on the other hand appear to be deficient in this regard.
I guess its too much of me to ask for intelligent discussion from you. Some were capable of it, some got the joke...some didn't apparently.
My crime, at worst, is not fully understanding the situation and bringing it up for discussion with hopes of having a legitimate discourse about it.
Sigh...how terrible I am :rolleyes:
Forgive me for questioning your sacred leader, or trying to clarify something or seek legitimate viewpoints devoid of the blather factor.
my mistake apparently
do you have any more?
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Well you know what...you are blind partisan if you don't know the details of something for yourself, but just follow along with the crowd as though you do.
I prefer to think about things, and not follow the crowd despite not knowing and fully understanding the details. You on the other hand appear to be deficient in this regard.
I guess its too much of me to ask for intelligent discussion from you. Some were capable of it, some got the joke...some didn't apparently.
My crime, at worst, is not fully understanding the situation and bringing it up for discussion with hopes of having a legitimate discourse about it.
Sigh...how terrible I am :rolleyes:
Forgive me for questioning your sacred leader, or trying to clarify something or seek legitimate viewpoints devoid of the blather factor.
my mistake apparently
do you have any more?
Anyone else see the irony oozing from this post? You keep trying to damn me on the one thing that I told you that I didn't know a lot about - quickly got caught up to speed and formed my own opinion.
But then you follow it up with that you didn't know or have a full understanding on the subject.
I gave you intelligent discussion several times by pointing out how what you were afraid of was unsubstantiated (in the other thread). You never could accept that - that is until you back peddle and said that thread was a ruse.
In this thread I have asked you several times to back up your claim that Obama ran as anti-war across the board. Every time I have, you have attacked me.
You can question my soon to be leader all you want. You just better come with something original and meaningful not from obamacrimes.com, clearly hell bent on slandering the president-elect. Have some real, well thought out issues other than trying to paint him with your anti-American rhetoric from slanted websites, and then we can talk.
i refuse to debate or discuss foreign policy with people that base their entire view of foreign policy on the fact that they believe 9/11 was an inside job
thats the real problem with my buddies roland and driftin' on topics like this... they view everything through the lense that they believe 9/11 was an inside job... which completely hinders them from looking at world events and US government policy in a realistic and sensible way... they think everything is a scam and everything is decided and guided by a shadowy group of elites with a goal of world domination
so yeah, it is pretty much a waste of time talking foreign policy with folks like that in my opinion
Anyone else see the irony oozing from this post? You keep trying to damn me on the one thing that I told you that I didn't know a lot about - quickly got caught up to speed and formed my own opinion.
But then you follow it up with that you didn't know or have a full understanding on the subject.
I gave you intelligent discussion several times by pointing out how what you were afraid of was unsubstantiated (in the other thread). You never could accept that - that is until you back peddle and said that thread was a ruse.
In this thread I have asked you several times to back up your claim that Obama ran as anti-war across the board. Every time I have, you have attacked me.
You can question my soon to be leader all you want. You just better come with something original and meaningful not from obamacrimes.com, clearly hell bent on slandering the president-elect. Have some real, well thought out issues other than trying to paint him with your anti-American rhetoric from slanted websites, and then we can talk.
Where and when have I attacked you?
Thread started out light hearted and whimsical. You admitted yourself to not knowing all the details. What do you do not understand about that reality?
You yourself claimed you didn't know something and were following the status quo (which is by default at that point), I point it out...you admit to it, and how is that my problem...why is that my fault is the question. How can I even be faulted for that is a better question.
Then you go on about you're right, I'm wrong, and I back peddled. Even at worse case scenario, my worst crime, at face value, is not knowing all the facts or perhaps trying to open up a legitimate discussion about without all your ridiculous insinuations towards what I think and believe by lumping the entire anti Obama speil rhetoric into what I think ....all of which are wrong btw.
Simply ridiculous.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
i refuse to debate or discuss foreign policy with people that base their entire view of foreign policy on the fact that they believe 9/11 was an inside job
thats the real problem with my buddies roland and driftin' on topics like this... they view everything through the lense that they believe 9/11 was an inside job... which completely hinders them from looking at world events and US government policy in a realistic and sensible way... they think everything is a scam and everything is decided and guided by a shadowy group of elites with a goal of world domination
so yeah, it is pretty much a waste of time talking foreign policy with folks like that in my opinion
How do Obama's appointees play into 9/11? If you could point that out you might have something, but really you're just over generalising the issue to confirm something that you yourself just want to believe despite.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Thread started out light hearted and whimsical. You admitted yourself to not knowing all the details. What do you do not understand about that reality?
You yourself claimed you didn't know something and were following the status quo (which is by default at that point), I point it out...you admit to it, and how is that my problem...why is that my fault is the question. How can I even be faulted for that is a better question.
Then you go on about you're right, I'm wrong, and I back peddled. Even at worse case scenario, my worst crime, at face value, is not knowing all the facts or perhaps trying to open up a legitimate discussion about without all your ridiculous insinuations towards what I think and believe by lumping the entire anti Obama speil rhetoric into what I think ....all of which are wrong btw.
Simply ridiculous.
You attacked me by assuming I am a blind partisan - when that couldn;t be further from the truth.
I admitted to not knowing all the details about one topic - you took that to damn my every word and how you "couldn't help me." Dude, i don't need help from someone who basis his opinions and sites things from such a slanted website.
I never once admitted to following the stus quo. Now you are making shit up.
Did i ever say it was your fault because I admitted to not knowing every fact about the Indonesia claim? Nope, that again never took place between you and I. You did however on multiple occasions falsely insinuate that I do not know what I am talking about at all because of the one topic i admitted to not knowing a lot about. I find that ironic as you also just admitted to not knowing all the facts - but that is okay for you to keep the discussion alive, but I am somehow wrong for doing so.
Your post(s) lend me and most others to believe that you are so against Obama and you will post anything and everything to try to back up your suspicions and will try to paint him in as negative of a light as possible. And then when people call your bluff, you are now saying that it was a ruse. A trick. Light hearted and whimsical.
Okay, so we both admit to not knowing all the details,. But that doesn't take away from my point at all with regards to the Birth Certificate forgery claim and about the Indonesian duel citizenship issue - both of which you brought up for discussion. Did you not have a point in all this?
i refuse to debate or discuss foreign policy with people that base their entire view of foreign policy on the fact that they believe 9/11 was an inside job
thats the real problem with my buddies roland and driftin' on topics like this... they view everything through the lense that they believe 9/11 was an inside job... which completely hinders them from looking at world events and US government policy in a realistic and sensible way... they think everything is a scam and everything is decided and guided by a shadowy group of elites with a goal of world domination
so yeah, it is pretty much a waste of time talking foreign policy with folks like that in my opinion
Too funny. that hasn't come up - except I have used the ridiculous 9/11 conspiracy claims as a bench mark for ridiculously claimed things that i also dismiss as ridiculous. Just like these claims of forged HI birth certificates and having given up his US citizenship when he was 5 years old.
You attacked me by assuming I am a blind partisan - when that couldn;t be further from the truth.
I admitted to not knowing all the details about one topic - you took that to damn my every word and how you "couldn't help me." Dude, i don't need help from someone who basis his opinions and sites things from such a slanted website.
I never once admitted to following the stus quo. Now you are making shit up.
Did i ever say it was your fault because I admitted to not knowing every fact about the Indonesia claim? Nope, that again never took place between you and I. You did however on multiple occasions falsely insinuate that I do not know what I am talking about at all because of the one topic i admitted to not knowing a lot about. I find that ironic as you also just admitted to not knowing all the facts - but that is okay for you to keep the discussion alive, but I am somehow wrong for doing so.
Your post(s) lend me and most others to believe that you are so against Obama and you will post anything and everything to try to back up your suspicions and will try to paint him in as negative of a light as possible. And then when people call your bluff, you are now saying that it was a ruse. A trick. Light hearted and whimsical.
Okay, so we both admit to not knowing all the details,. But that doesn't take away from my point at all with regards to the Birth Certificate forgery claim and about the Indonesian duel citizenship issue - both of which you brought up for discussion. Did you not have a point in all this?
Dude, if you don't look into something personally and go on what other people say...then what are you doing. answer: you blindly following along with the stauts quo in a partisan manner.
This conversation is already past retarded.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Dude, if you don't look into something personally and go on what other people say...then what are you doing. answer: you blindly following along with the stauts quo in a partisan manner.
This conversation is already past retarded.
Thankfully, I did look into these topics personally, and formed my very own opinion. At what point didn't I do that? At what point did I say that someone else said this so that is what i will say too?
I have never followed anything in a partisan matter - EVER. Every opion I have i take very personally. I dare you and challenge you to disprove me on that standpoint. Try it! I stand on my own two feet. I form my own opinions and stand by them! Prove me otherwise.
Dude, if you don't look into something personally and go on what other people say...then what are you doing. answer: you blindly following along with the stauts quo in a partisan manner.
This conversation is already past retarded.
I love how you have shy'd away from answering any of my direct questions and instead just resorted to slinging mud at me.
Comments
I've boatloads of people saying how anti war Obama is. He's all about diplomacy they cried not war.
With regards to the public in general, it's highly deceptive at best.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Obama has always (as long as it has been an issue) been about bolstering up the war on terror in Afghanistan. I think that is the right move. That is a just war.
Public vibe now, that is the "angle" you are using now. Laughs dude.
You know, kinda like how so many liberals were against the patriot act for years until they found out Obama voted to renew it 3 times then suddenly they had no problem with it.
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
Can you please explain for me,
using observable examples,
why the United States has the necessity and right to further a regional war by engaging Afghanistan militarily?
I don't understand the rationale, or the validity behind the assertion that putting US troops in Afghanistan is just, right, or necessary.
What resolutions, international laws, or treaties has Afghanistan violated, and what clear and imminent danger to our republic do they pose?
Again, i'm not asking for rhetoric, ideology, or opinion,
i'm asking for empirical real world examples of demonstrable harm emanating from the sovereign nation state of Afghanistan.
What right are you claiming we have to invade and maintain a presence there?
Did we not already oust the Taliban regime, install a transitional government, and then a permanent, eurocentric, puppet government?
What is our beef with Afghanistan at this point?
Is it that there is violent opposition to this "puppet government", and is that a valid reason for renewing a conflict?
I'm sure there is some valid reason for further engaging Afghanistan, i just truly fail to see it.
If we have already installed a Pro-Western central government in Afghanistan, and if they are experiencing internal violence directed in opposition to this government, isn't that:
a. partly the fault of Western powers, who helped create that government
b. an internal security concern, thus the prerogative and responsibility of "THEIR" government to resolve?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think you shown me that you are incapable of thinking outside yourself on a lot of issues that you don't want to understand aside from what you already believe within the confines of your own mind to be true.
You apply your thoughts as everyone's thoughts and claim you are justified in that based on what you believe.
Now you even go so far as to claim Obama is/was pro war, and that everyone saw this
unbelievable.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
On Afghanistan; the Taliban is on the rise again there. I guess we never did finish up over there like we thought we did 6 years ago when we took our eye off the war on terror and focused on a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11. We need to be fighting the Taliban, Al Queda, and Osama Bin Laden's group of tyrants. Be that where ever it is.
I am not a general in the military, nor do I get intelligence reports sent to me, but i am firm believer in the war on terror, and can plainly see the difference in the war on Iraq and the war on terror. Unfortunately, GW has done a spectacular job and blurring the lines between them in latter years since the onset by allowing Iraq to become a breeding ground for all those who hate us in the US.
Odd, you shown me the same things about your closed mindedness. You have yet to spew anything thought out from your own mind that makes any sense at all without referring to obamacrimes.com. But keep trying! Maybe a new angle would suite you better. Try that!
Funny how you have yet to even remotely answer any of my questions to prove and further your anti-American Obama claims.
I pose questions for discussion...you froth absolutes. Big difference.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I state my own opinion. You site obamacrimes.com. Huge difference. I have been able to disprove your unsubstantiated fears. You ahve not been able to counter anything I have said and instead resort back to calling me blind partisan.
Well you know what...you are blind partisan if you don't know the details of something for yourself, but just follow along with the crowd as though you do.
I prefer to think about things, and not follow the crowd despite not knowing and fully understanding the details. You on the other hand appear to be deficient in this regard.
I guess its too much of me to ask for intelligent discussion from you. Some were capable of it, some got the joke...some didn't apparently.
My crime, at worst, is not fully understanding the situation and bringing it up for discussion with hopes of having a legitimate discourse about it.
Sigh...how terrible I am :rolleyes:
Forgive me for questioning your sacred leader, or trying to clarify something or seek legitimate viewpoints devoid of the blather factor.
my mistake apparently
do you have any more?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
But then you follow it up with that you didn't know or have a full understanding on the subject.
I gave you intelligent discussion several times by pointing out how what you were afraid of was unsubstantiated (in the other thread). You never could accept that - that is until you back peddle and said that thread was a ruse.
In this thread I have asked you several times to back up your claim that Obama ran as anti-war across the board. Every time I have, you have attacked me.
You can question my soon to be leader all you want. You just better come with something original and meaningful not from obamacrimes.com, clearly hell bent on slandering the president-elect. Have some real, well thought out issues other than trying to paint him with your anti-American rhetoric from slanted websites, and then we can talk.
thats the real problem with my buddies roland and driftin' on topics like this... they view everything through the lense that they believe 9/11 was an inside job... which completely hinders them from looking at world events and US government policy in a realistic and sensible way... they think everything is a scam and everything is decided and guided by a shadowy group of elites with a goal of world domination
so yeah, it is pretty much a waste of time talking foreign policy with folks like that in my opinion
Where and when have I attacked you?
Thread started out light hearted and whimsical. You admitted yourself to not knowing all the details. What do you do not understand about that reality?
You yourself claimed you didn't know something and were following the status quo (which is by default at that point), I point it out...you admit to it, and how is that my problem...why is that my fault is the question. How can I even be faulted for that is a better question.
Then you go on about you're right, I'm wrong, and I back peddled. Even at worse case scenario, my worst crime, at face value, is not knowing all the facts or perhaps trying to open up a legitimate discussion about without all your ridiculous insinuations towards what I think and believe by lumping the entire anti Obama speil rhetoric into what I think ....all of which are wrong btw.
Simply ridiculous.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
How do Obama's appointees play into 9/11? If you could point that out you might have something, but really you're just over generalising the issue to confirm something that you yourself just want to believe despite.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I admitted to not knowing all the details about one topic - you took that to damn my every word and how you "couldn't help me." Dude, i don't need help from someone who basis his opinions and sites things from such a slanted website.
I never once admitted to following the stus quo. Now you are making shit up.
Did i ever say it was your fault because I admitted to not knowing every fact about the Indonesia claim? Nope, that again never took place between you and I. You did however on multiple occasions falsely insinuate that I do not know what I am talking about at all because of the one topic i admitted to not knowing a lot about. I find that ironic as you also just admitted to not knowing all the facts - but that is okay for you to keep the discussion alive, but I am somehow wrong for doing so.
Your post(s) lend me and most others to believe that you are so against Obama and you will post anything and everything to try to back up your suspicions and will try to paint him in as negative of a light as possible. And then when people call your bluff, you are now saying that it was a ruse. A trick. Light hearted and whimsical.
Okay, so we both admit to not knowing all the details,. But that doesn't take away from my point at all with regards to the Birth Certificate forgery claim and about the Indonesian duel citizenship issue - both of which you brought up for discussion. Did you not have a point in all this?
Dude, if you don't look into something personally and go on what other people say...then what are you doing. answer: you blindly following along with the stauts quo in a partisan manner.
This conversation is already past retarded.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I have never followed anything in a partisan matter - EVER. Every opion I have i take very personally. I dare you and challenge you to disprove me on that standpoint. Try it! I stand on my own two feet. I form my own opinions and stand by them! Prove me otherwise.