First kills in Obama's War
- Thread starter X3pilot
- Start date
yep... just getting started
Stay the course, from one regime to another.
awesome, n8's gone so you've taken his place of blindly copy/pasting whatever's on Drudge?drudgereport.com said:
so i guess that means they're not dead ???
i guess the truth only comes from your sources doesn't it ???
Gotta love people watching fox news and then just blabbing out crap. It was part of his promises like Ohio said.
are you all seriously still upset about obama? Come on. He never said full withdraw, and do you seriously think McCain was a better choice.... Obama is more conservative than the new republican party. Look at what Bush did to us, although he had some crazy circumstances.
instead of hating obama, which I dont and I didnt vote for him, why not hope he does well for the country. Same goes for the democrats on this board, why not hope the next republican (hopefully romney and not palin) does well when/ if they are elected.
instead of hating obama, which I dont and I didnt vote for him, why not hope he does well for the country. Same goes for the democrats on this board, why not hope the next republican (hopefully romney and not palin) does well when/ if they are elected.
yeah, it came from drudge, who got it somewhere else, it was an AP story first. Drudge doesn't any more write the news than Huffington. No, the war in Afghanistan was his campaign promise, not invading the soverign territory of Pakistan.
See the thread here? You can't stand here and deplore Bush for "invading" and "not respecting a soverign nation" and applaud Obama.
I don't dislike Obama, the point is, that war, and these wars in particular, are dirty and will not be easy to clean up, no more so than any other war.
See the thread here? You can't stand here and deplore Bush for "invading" and "not respecting a soverign nation" and applaud Obama.
I don't dislike Obama, the point is, that war, and these wars in particular, are dirty and will not be easy to clean up, no more so than any other war.
Cool, did you bother to check my link before you blindly made an assumption correlating me to n8??
See above for reference to your asshatery. Blindly agreeing with whatever Dante posts? Seriously, if you're going to jump in the fray, read the lead post first.
Fixed.thcrob said:
First of all I doubt that Obama promised that he will continue attacks in Pakistan. Even if he did Pakistan people don't give a sh1t about your president's promises. Such actions endanger their government, with each strike pushing extremists in Pakistan closer to power. Besides war in Afghanistan is total failure, I wonder who benefit from it.
Here; more violence is reported:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-01-23-pakistan_N.htm
Here; more violence is reported:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-01-23-pakistan_N.htm
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will," Obama said, referring to reports that Al-Qaeda had regrouped in Pakistani tribal areas bordering Afghanistan.
Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama, Aug 1, 2007
Tough talk on Pakistan from Obama, Aug 1, 2007
Yes, I clicked on your link... The only thing is your link didn't say anything about this now being "Obama's War", only Drudge wrote that. I just think it's pretty funny that you not only posted the article you read on Drudge, but you COPIED HIS HEADLINE. Ok, you added an 's in order to make it grammatically correct, woohoo.
And yes, Ohio, Obama promised exactly that, that he'd go after terrorists in Pakistan and was berated by McCain for it. What a shock, he's doing what he said he'd do...
killing brown people was a campaign promise?
Of course it was.
Killing brown people is the goddamn job description of the POTUS.
Who else is going to do it? Sweden?
(I should note that I've long been on the record that Pakistan and Saudi Arabia brown people are the brown people that we ought to be killing, since we seem to have an institutional bloodlust for it.)
Extremists may well take over in Pakistan but they won't be the kind you're thinking about. For a start India will never let a Taliban type government take-over.
Whatever. I posted this to RM before Drudge posted his link. Goddamn, Dante, you outed me, I'm Matt Drudge.Yes, I clicked on your link... The only thing is your link didn't say anything about this now being "Obama's War", only Drudge wrote that. I just think it's pretty funny that you not only posted the article you read on Drudge, but you COPIED HIS HEADLINE. Ok, you added an 's in order to make it grammatically correct, woohoo.
And yet, so did Bush when he promised to go after terrorist in Iraq, where's your outrage at Obama for waging war against the brown people. Bush did exactly what he promised he'd do, even though it was stupid.
You guys sure Obama said in the campaign he'd attack Pakistan? Sure he wasn't talking about Afghanistan? I think he reference to Pakistan was chasing terrorist from Afghanistan into Pakistan with Pakistans help.
Wait, did you *really* miss all of the times that McCain berated Obama for his position on being willing to attack terrorists in Pakistan?
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry4483110.shtml
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,398325,00.html?sPage=fnc/us/americasfuture
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks19-2008jun19,0,921134.column
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/17/AR2008061702819_pf.html
It was brought up over, and over, and over again.
Bush / Cheney blatantly lied trying to link Iraq and "terrorists". No one is doubting that there are terrorist cells in Afghanistan and Pakistan...
which blatant lie was this? the one where saddam was compensating families of suicide bombers compensation for their "efforts"?
i mean c'mon, it's blatant, so it has to be easily discoverable.
"[The CIA possesses] solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases ... Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."
"We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicles] for missions targeting the United States."
I didn't include the obvious weapons lies.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-04-06-cheney_N.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980CEED71E39F932A25752C1A9659C8B63
are those enough links?
i'm sorry, did "lie" get redefined to mean "****ty intel"? it's one thing to only consider evidence to support an a-priori conclusion ("tell me what i want to hear"). it's quite another matter to knowingly dismiss contradictory intel.
if i hastily shoot an intruder at the first instant he crossed the threshold, i cannot be convicted of murder. if it's my drunk neighbor who thinks he's at his house & i wait for him to cross so i have what i think to be a legal alibi, well that's where the wicket gets a little sticky
i predict obama will make what bush has called "difficult decisions", but i do not expect they will be considered lies. uncomfortable to think for you, i'm sure.
if i hastily shoot an intruder at the first instant he crossed the threshold, i cannot be convicted of murder. if it's my drunk neighbor who thinks he's at his house & i wait for him to cross so i have what i think to be a legal alibi, well that's where the wicket gets a little sticky
i predict obama will make what bush has called "difficult decisions", but i do not expect they will be considered lies. uncomfortable to think for you, i'm sure.
No, because what they did is manipulated intelligence to justify killing 1 million people. They manipulated the facts to fit their worldview, and 1 million people paid the price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties
or if you trust the Lancet more, they counted 654,965 in 2006
Last edited:
The Lancet study counted excess mortality.
Just because we blew up all the infrastructure doesn't mean you can blame us for sanitation and public health problems...
Collateral damage for the win!
The statements made by the previous administration were certainly false and inaccurate (def.#3). And actually, Cheney had been briefed that the cornerstone of his argument (that Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague) was not true, but he continued to claim it was true:dictionary.com said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_gm1zNURfo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/K_gm1zNURfo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Okay, okay give your link pasting finger a rest. I took what he always said to mean that he would pursue terrorist FROM Afghanistan into Pakistan and if Pakistan wouldn't help, we'd consider all options.
ffs, you wrote "No, because what they did is manipulated intelligence to justify killing 1 million people. ", which we didn't do. do you honestly think we killed one million people (i'm being very generous by allowing these disputed figures), or that the conflict has resulted in mass casualties? i certainly cannot be both.
so the weatherman is a liar when he's wrong? stop doing this. the both of you. you look ridiculous trying to make this stick. it hasn't & it won't. even that bimbo pelosi knows this doesn't have legs.
this is apart from the fact that you've now wandered away from the sweeping allegation "Bush / Cheney blatantly lied trying to link Iraq and terrorists" to "cheney misled about atta & saddam cronies meeting in praque when he put forth they had intel coming from the czechs".
Well, there are three major cultural/religious groups that don't like each other and the only thing holding them together is an oppressive dictator, a civil war will break out if the oppressive dictator is removed. That has happened to many times that mass civilian casualties have to be expected if he was removed.
We caused events that caused 1 million people to die, essentially, we killed them.
It wasn't ****ty intel, there was no reason to invade. There weren't any WMDs, the weapons inspectors said there weren't any WMDs, but Bush somehow thought there were WMDs in spite of the weapons inspectors.
Comparing declaring war to predicting weather is ridiculous
We caused events that caused 1 million people to die, essentially, we killed them.
It wasn't ****ty intel, there was no reason to invade. There weren't any WMDs, the weapons inspectors said there weren't any WMDs, but Bush somehow thought there were WMDs in spite of the weapons inspectors.
Comparing declaring war to predicting weather is ridiculous
Last edited: