|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 14, 2012 0:34:05 GMT -5
That's not starting a war. Those drone strikes were to protect us. You know, what the President is supposed to do? They weren't just out of the blue to kill a random civilian and laugh at the destruction. You are the most blissfully ignorant person on this board. Congratulations. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 14, 2012 8:02:13 GMT -5
That's not starting a war. Those drone strikes were to protect us. You know, what the President is supposed to do? They weren't just out of the blue to kill a random civilian and laugh at the destruction. But it did kill random civilians, lots of them. Not sure how that protects us, but oh well. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 14, 2012 20:44:45 GMT -5
That's not starting a war. Those drone strikes were to protect us. You know, what the President is supposed to do? They weren't just out of the blue to kill a random civilian and laugh at the destruction. You are the most blissfully ignorant person on this board. Congratulations. So no one has explained how a drone strike is starting a war. And I'm the ignorant one...why? Because I don't agree with you? Awesome I see the logic. *NOT!* Oh wait. It's my comment about the drone strikes protecting us. Yeah that makes me totally ignorant. Yep. Because that's all the strikes were. To sit back and laugh at the damage done. Even more ridiculousness from you. Also, it's yet to be explained how ending the war in Iraq and having every troop out of that country when he said he would is continuing a war. |
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Oct 14, 2012 21:57:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 14, 2012 22:14:46 GMT -5
So no one has explained how a drone strike is starting a war. So it wouldn't be an act of war if China launched a drone strike in the US and killed some civilians? Or an act of terrorism? Of course we're the US, it's only ok when we do it. Oh wait. It's my comment about the drone strikes protecting us. Yeah that makes me totally ignorant. Yep. Because that's all the strikes were. To sit back and laugh at the damage done. Even more ridiculousness from you. About as ignorant as claiming invading Iraq was for protecting us. It doesn't matter what the intention was, unnecessary damage was done. If you can explain how those drone strikes are for protecting us, please do. Also, it's yet to be explained how ending the war in Iraq and having every troop out of that country when he said he would is continuing a war. He campaigned as an anti-war candidate but escalated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and started a third war in Libya while in office. You've got to be f  ing kidding me... |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 20:18:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2012 23:46:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 15, 2012 0:11:54 GMT -5
You are the most blissfully ignorant person on this board. Congratulations. So no one has explained how a drone strike is starting a war. And I'm the ignorant one...why? Because I don't agree with you? Awesome I see the logic. *NOT!* Oh wait. It's my comment about the drone strikes protecting us. Yeah that makes me totally ignorant. Yep. Because that's all the strikes were. To sit back and laugh at the damage done. Even more ridiculousness from you. Also, it's yet to be explained how ending the war in Iraq and having every troop out of that country when he said he would is continuing a war. A VIOLENT ATTACK ON CIVILIANS IS AN ACT OF WAR. What the do you not understand here? Wow. Seriously unbelievable. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 20:18:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2012 13:03:57 GMT -5
So no one has explained how a drone strike is starting a war. And I'm the ignorant one...why? Because I don't agree with you? Awesome I see the logic. *NOT!* Oh wait. It's my comment about the drone strikes protecting us. Yeah that makes me totally ignorant. Yep. Because that's all the strikes were. To sit back and laugh at the damage done. Even more ridiculousness from you. Also, it's yet to be explained how ending the war in Iraq and having every troop out of that country when he said he would is continuing a war. A VIOLENT ATTACK ON CIVILIANS IS AN ACT OF WAR. What the do you not understand here? Wow. Seriously unbelievable. You see what this is proof of, though? That it's not like pro-foreign intervention/pro-war politicians make the decisions that they do against the will of their voting base or American citizenry; the fact is, many American citizens want these types of things to happen. Often, libertarians and liberals who criticize war and foreign intervention see the politicians as doing it against the will of American citizens; I'm not radically pro-war nor radically anti-war, and I can see a decent argument from both sides, but though a liberal or libertarian may be able to argue that things like that are bad/big government/unConstitutional, they certainly have to admit there are large groups of people that want these things, and therefore good decisions/small government/Constitutionalism is not what all Americans want; whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you, but it's true. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 15, 2012 13:20:43 GMT -5
So no one has explained how a drone strike is starting a war. So it wouldn't be an act of war if China launched a drone strike in the US and killed some civilians? Or an act of terrorism? Of course we're the US, it's only ok when we do it. About as ignorant as claiming invading Iraq was for protecting us. It doesn't matter what the intention was, unnecessary damage was done. If you can explain how those drone strikes are for protecting us, please do. He campaigned as an anti-war candidate but escalated the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and started a third war in Libya while in office. You've got to be f ing kidding me... He did not start a war in Libya. The US involvement in the Libyan conflict was solved with NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND! That is not starting a war. He did not escalate any part of the situation in Libya. And if any of you bothered to read the article, it's for a training mission and the troops arrival was negotiated by both Iraq and the US. We didn't just head back over and start bombing again. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 15, 2012 17:03:57 GMT -5
A VIOLENT ATTACK ON CIVILIANS IS AN ACT OF WAR. What the do you not understand here? Wow. Seriously unbelievable. You see what this is proof of, though? That it's not like pro-foreign intervention/pro-war politicians make the decisions that they do against the will of their voting base or American citizenry; the fact is, many American citizens want these types of things to happen. Often, libertarians and liberals who criticize war and foreign intervention see the politicians as doing it against the will of American citizens; I'm not radically pro-war nor radically anti-war, and I can see a decent argument from both sides, but though a liberal or libertarian may be able to argue that things like that are bad/big government/unConstitutional, they certainly have to admit there are large groups of people that want these things, and therefore good decisions/small government/Constitutionalism is not what all Americans want; whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you, but it's true. Yes, I acknowledge that there are a lot of people who don't understand "blowback" or simply do not care. But the collective will of the citizens, in many cases, is the wrong choice. That's why we have a republic, not a democracy. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 15, 2012 17:05:40 GMT -5
He did not start a war in Libya. The US involvement in the Libyan conflict was solved with NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND! That is not starting a war. He did not escalate any part of the situation in Libya. And if any of you bothered to read the article, it's for a training mission and the troops arrival was negotiated by both Iraq and the US. We didn't just head back over and start bombing again. LoL at "troops on the ground" being the definition of "war." I guess if the US government completely wipes Iran off the face of the Earth with a barrage of nuclear weapons, that would mean we did not commit an act of war under your insane definition because we didn't put troops there. Good, solid, sound reasoning there, champ. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 15, 2012 17:20:35 GMT -5
He did not start a war in Libya. The US involvement in the Libyan conflict was solved with NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND! That is not starting a war. He did not escalate any part of the situation in Libya. You're seriously saying that because there were no ground troops there's no war? By that logic, Pearl Harbor wasn't an act of war. Unbelievable. And if any of you bothered to read the article, it's for a training mission and the troops arrival was negotiated by both Iraq and the US. We didn't just head back over and start bombing again. That really makes no difference to me quite frankly. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 16, 2012 10:36:03 GMT -5
He did not start a war in Libya. The US involvement in the Libyan conflict was solved with NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND! That is not starting a war. He did not escalate any part of the situation in Libya. You're seriously saying that because there were no ground troops there's no war? By that logic, Pearl Harbor wasn't an act of war. Unbelievable. And if any of you bothered to read the article, it's for a training mission and the troops arrival was negotiated by both Iraq and the US. We didn't just head back over and start bombing again. That really makes no difference to me quite frankly. There was no war involving the United States! We did not start that war. We did not bomb them at 7AM one morning because we were pissed off! I did not say there was no war in Libya. Go back and re-read what I said. And what does or doesn't make a difference to you in terms of what is or isn't a war - I.e. the training in Iraq - isn't taken into consideration. Just because some troops were sent there does NOT mean it's the start of a new war nor is it the continuation of the Bush Iraq war, which ended 10 months ago. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Oct 16, 2012 11:19:44 GMT -5
We haven't, technically, been "at war" since 1947.
But the Obama administration is guilty of committing war crimes. So was the Bush administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Oct 16, 2012 11:38:45 GMT -5
Maybe he will end the "war" on drugs.
HAHAHAHAHA sorry I got caught up in make believe land again.
|
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Oct 16, 2012 13:25:58 GMT -5
The Supreme Court has blocked the Republican measure to limit early voting in Ohio the weekend before Election Day. This is big because of Ohio is said to be one of the swing states that, if it came to it, could decide the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Greg Weinstein on Oct 16, 2012 16:07:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Oct 16, 2012 18:23:42 GMT -5
There was no war involving the United States! We did not start that war. We did not bomb them at 7AM one morning because we were pissed off! What difference does the time and the country doing the bombing make? I did not say there was no war in Libya. Go back and re-read what I said. Certainly... He did not start a war in Libya. The US involvement in the Libyan conflict was solved with NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND! That is not starting a war. He did not escalate any part of the situation in Libya. ...nope, you didn't alright. And what does or doesn't make a difference to you in terms of what is or isn't a war - I.e. the training in Iraq - isn't taken into consideration. Just because some troops were sent there does NOT mean it's the start of a new war nor is it the continuation of the Bush Iraq war, which ended 10 months ago. That was a very vague statement on my part. It didn't matter to me whether or not we were going there to fight or train because we should have never been there in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Oct 16, 2012 20:21:20 GMT -5
I'm kind of digging this debate.
Romney: You're a dirty liar!!
Obama: You're a dirty liar!!
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 15, 2024 20:18:55 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 20:22:44 GMT -5
i thought romney and obummer were going to fight just a sec ago lol
|
|
