Gadhafi capture or dead?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by NJ Stinks

You have been seeing this stuff since Obama took over.

Just thought you may have missed the obvious, Tommy.

And it all started when Bush decided to go into Iraq and Afghanistan, although you won't see any MSM outlets admitting this obvious fact.

In fact, I looked up "Arab Spring" on WiKi and there is not even one mention of the invasion of Iraq and the take down of Saddam as any sort of impetus towards this developing wellspring of revolution and democracy...very telling...

Never mind Bush himself stated that this was one of his goals. His vision was of a Middle East thirsting for Democracy...where the people would rise up against these tyrannical dictators and install a better kind of government for the people.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...es-krauthammer

Yet we have been told incessantly how Iraq poisoned the Arab mind against America. Really? Where is the rampant anti-Americanism in any of these revolutions? It’s Yemen’s president and the delusional Qaddafi who are railing against American conspiracies to rule and enslave. The demonstrators in the streets of Egypt, Iran, and Libya have been straining their eyes for America to help. They are not chanting the antiwar slogans — remember “No blood for oil”? — of the American Left. Why would they? America is leaving Iraq having taken no oil, having established no permanent bases, and having left behind not a puppet regime but a functioning democracy. This, after Iraq’s purple-fingered exercises in free elections seen on television everywhere set an example for the entire region.

Facebook and Twitter have surely mediated this pan-Arab (and Iranian) reach for dignity and freedom. But the Bush Doctrine set the premise.

It is so crystal clear that the "Bush Doctrine" itself was indeed the catalyst for all that we see today happening in the Middle East. But instead of giving credit where credit is due, we have people like NJ Stinks giving all the credit to Obama...

Democratic regime change

In a series of speeches in late 2001 and 2002, Bush expanded on his view of American foreign policy and global intervention, declaring that the United States should actively support democratic governments around the world, especially in the Middle East, as a strategy for combating the threat of terrorism, and that the United States had the right to act unilaterally in its own security interests, without the approval of international bodies such as the United Nations.[3][4][5] This represented a departure from the Cold War policies of deterrence and containment under the Truman Doctrine and post–Cold War philosophies such as the Powell Doctrine and the Clinton Doctrine.

In his 2003 State of the Union Address, Bush declared:[33]
“ Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity. ”

After his second inauguration, in a January 2004 speech at National Defense University, Bush said: "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom."

Neoconservatives and the Bush Doctrine held that the hatred for the West and United States in particular does not exist because of actions perpetrated by the United States, but rather because the countries from which terrorists emerge are in social disarray and do not experience the freedom that is an intrinsic part of democracy.[14][19] The Bush Doctrine holds that enemies of United States are using terrorism as a war of ideology against the United States. The responsibility of the United States is to protect itself and its friends by promoting democracy where the terrorists are located so as to undermine the basis for terrorist activities.[14][19]

[Tom]

I have to make allowances for NJ......reality is such a greased pig to him.
SH being hung, the people with the purple thumbs, Kadaffy turning over his nukes........such inconvenient truths.

I also recall that the number one "uprising" we SHOULD have backed was IRan, but Dumbo failed to stand up and take part in that one. Does Barry FEAR Imadinnerjacket, or was it professional courtesy?

[Tom]

btw, overnight reports on Momo's demise - he was killed by an escaped Tiger fro Ohio.

NOMO MOMO

[turfbar]

You "MEN" are scary


Turfbar

[Sugar Ron]

Con bozos vs. BO on Libya (published 3/28/11):

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/obam...arrot-top.html


Whether one agrees with President Obama or not on the Libya issue, he was clearly well-informed and in control of the facts and analysis. His fabled intelligence and cool-headedness were on display.

It is a sad commentary that American political discourse is so cheapened and debased by demagoguery promoted by sly billionaires like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers that the responses to Obama from the other side of the aisle were sometimes comical in their ignorance.


Some excellent commentary ... you could lump all those losers (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc) on con propaganda radio in there with Murdoch and the Koch Sisters too.


And here's yet another recent piece exposing our world-class mormon flopper:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...mney-on-libya/


Yo Willard ... we have a foreign policy PRO in the White House now ... so take your bad opinions down the f'n road...

[elysiantraveller]

Originally Posted by Sugar Ron

Con bozos vs. BO on Libya (published 3/28/11):

http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/obam...arrot-top.html


Whether one agrees with President Obama or not on the Libya issue, he was clearly well-informed and in control of the facts and analysis. His fabled intelligence and cool-headedness were on display.

It is a sad commentary that American political discourse is so cheapened and debased by demagoguery promoted by sly billionaires like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers that the responses to Obama from the other side of the aisle were sometimes comical in their ignorance.


Some excellent commentary ... you could lump all those losers (Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, etc) on con propaganda radio in there with Murdoch and the Koch Sisters too.


And here's yet another recent piece exposing our world-class mormon flopper:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...mney-on-libya/


Yo Willard ... we have a foreign policy PRO in the White House now ... so take your bad opinions down the f'n road...

Republican's have a hard time challenging Obama on foreign policy because his administration has just been a continuation of the Bush foreign policy of the previous 8 years.

Personally, I think he handled the Libyan situation well even though I was extremely critical as it began. The United States' role in the conflict was extremely limited with the bulk of our sorties and operations taking place at the very beginning of NATO intervention because the United States has abilities to "clear the skies" that the other NATO countries don't. After that was accomplished we let the British, French, Italians, etc. take the lead on daily operations.

The campaign to remove Gadahfi has been extremely well executed by NATO and to say otherwise is foolish. Regardless of party affiliation.

[bigmack]

Originally Posted by Sugar Ron

Con bozos vs. BO on Libya (published 3/28/11):

Oh how precious. Little Ron sitting in his basement reading the opinions of one, PROFESSOR JUAN COLE.



Two nerds together. How touching.

Q: What's a con?

[cj's dad]

Ghadafi, "Now, ruling America is a black man from our continent, an African from Arab descent, from Muslim descent, and this is something we never imagined – that from Reagan we would get to Barakeh Obama."

I wonder if BO and the LAOTUS will attend the funeral ? They were, after all, friends.

Link:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...877174,00.html

[Tom]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Oh how precious. Little Ron sitting in his basement reading the opinions of one, PROFESSOR JUAN COLE.



Two nerds together. How touching.

Q: What's a con?

Sugar Bear reads in his basement what Little Juan writes in his.
A complete circle.......uh, circle.

[Light]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Whoopsie.

Next time you decide to present some cockamamie anti Palestinian story you found on the internet, think a minute if its even plausible .

If Netanyahu released people who were purportedly more dangerous than Jeffry Dahmer do you realize he would basically be losing his job and having a shit load of anger among his people and cabinet representatives?

I mean you come across to me as a racist idiot. If you want to be a racist, and It's clear you are one, at least try to not be so obvious.

[DJofSD]

Originally Posted by Light

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't get the point. Takes a PHD.

Did you ever hear the saying from Christ (paraphrasing) "why do you see the splinter in your neighbors eye and not see the log in your own?"

You guys talk trash about a dead dictator but i can guarantee you Bush killed more innocent people than the dead dictator. Why don't you trash talk Bush? Because you are hypocrites. Right and wrong by neo cons is defined not by reality but by your twisted political affiliation.

Knock on Heaven's door and when the guy answers say "let me in I'm an American" "I defended Bush for killing all those innocent dead Iraqi's". See how well that works. He just might tell you to go to hell.

So, I take it all that voted for Bush are condemned to hell. Right. Plank in my eye? How about the disjointed ramblings of an idiot?

[Sugar Ron]

Ah, the two resident con pinheads offering some more deep thoughts on yet another thread ... LMAO

[Sugar Ron]

Originally Posted by bigmack

Q: What's a con?

Doesn't matter at this point

The fact that the word soooooo gets under your (wrinkled) skin is more than enough reason to continue using it often ... LMAO

[PaceAdvantage]

It's disturbing that people from both sides of the debate can't participate here without the constant use of name calling as a debate tactic.

I've been so lenient with a choice few from BOTH sides, but this is starting to get out of hand.

Why do you guys continually force me to close threads and/or ban folks?

I try and lead by example. In my 12+ years debating here on off-topic, I have made it a point to almost NEVER call anyone else a name no matter how stupid I think their opinion might be...But I guess leading by example doesn't mean a thing. Only heavy handed tactics like closing threads and kicking repeat offenders out is the only thing that gets noticed.

[Light]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

So, I take it all that voted for Bush are condemned to hell. Right.

No. But now its clear that Bush was wrong and his motives were greedy and corrupt. Yet people like you continue to defend his senseless killings and maiming of innocent people that occurred while condemning someone else who committed the same atrocities. For what? For your pride as an American. To take pride in one atrocity and condemn another is shameful.