Didn't Reagan go off attacking other nations without approval of congress?

[Soul Crusher]

rude.. this fuckin assclown ignores the fact that i say i disagree with just about everything obama had done.. like 48 times i said that to this prick...but because he is with the All Or none shit.. he feels i kneepad obama..

this fag comes on here and makes up blatant lies.. but im the fucked up one

LMFAO 

Holla! 

[RUDE BUOY]

rude.. this fuckin assclown ignores the fact that i say i disagree with just about everything obama had done.. like 48 times i said that to this prick...but because he is with the All Or none shit.. he feels i kneepad obama..

this fag comes on here and makes up blatant lies.. but im the fucked up one

lol i feel you man our generation can talk about this bullshit till we are blue in the face but the only reason we can talk about such things so in depth is because the way news and what everyone does is so accessible now a days. These fools in office have been shady and only out for their own best interests since the words don't tread on me were first uttered obama aint the first he aint the last

[whork25]

And for all you pathetic advocates of this intervention on the basis that it's preventing a "humanitarian crisis", does that mean you're also advocating for military interventions in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, Iran, China and other countries because the ones listed are brutalizing their people as we speak.

From a humanitarian/christian stand-point yes
Using common sence no

[whork25]

No, we don't. The British govt. was up to its neck in the negotiations for releasing the Lockerbie bomber for oil. The only reason France and England are doing anything at all is because they have oil interests at stake, not because they actually care about the people. But unlike France and England, Libya is of no strategic value to the US.

Afghanistan and Irak has no strategic value to the British either so..

[loco]

Yeah i have always believed foreign policy changes little from president to president.  

Not just foreign policy.  Like Clinton and like Bush, Obama is doing nothing to regulate derivatives.  That's a huge part of what destroyed the economy, and it will destroy the economy again soon if nothing is done about this.

[whork25]

Not just foreign policy.  Like Clinton and like Bush, Obama is doing nothing to regulate derivatives.  That's a huge part of what destroyed the economy, and it will destroy the economy again soon if nothing is done about this.

Good point sir

[Option D]

Not just foreign policy.  Like Clinton and like Bush, Obama is doing nothing to regulate derivatives.  That's a huge part of what destroyed the economy, and it will destroy the economy again soon if nothing is done about this.

Explain please...

[kcballer]

wow, Im not sure what just happened lol...

And just like that we have the spam pictures, the youtubes, insults etc

All we need is the 'mobacca' reference and et pictures to make this thread complete. 

Come on 333 you know you want to...

[Fury]

Afghanistan and Irak has no strategic value to the British either so..

There you go again rationalizing Obama's actions by comparing him to Bush, the guy you far-lefties say was the worst president ever, you illiterate high-school dropout.

[loco]

Explain please...

Sure:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/

[Option D]

so you think government intervention/regulation should have exisited in the stock market?

[Soul Crusher]

so you think government intervention/regulation should have exisited in the stock market?

We had an effective one that Clinton got rid of due to Geithner, Summers, Rubin, Greenspan 

[loco]

so you think government intervention/regulation should have exisited in the stock market?

Not necessarily for the entire stock market.  For the derivatives market?  Definitely!

[GigantorX]

So after reading/listening to whats going on in Libya I've learned that:

1.)The French are in charge? Is it NATO? The U.S. will use force for a little bit then stop? The Arab League wanted a no fly zone until the NFZ included blowing stuff up? No wait, it's the UN that's running the show, right?

2.)There is no clearly stated goal or outcome that has been stated. It's a humanitarian mission but Obama said it was time for the good Col. to go, but now he has said this isn't about deposing the Col. Is it because of oil in general? Or is it because the French want their oil company Total (spelling) to be back in the saddle?

3.)The Germans want nothing to do with it.

4.)Even with the "Coalitions" help the rebels are being pushed back.

5.) Because of 4, the rebels are asking for more "help".

6.)Obama has now stated that the international community has an absolute obligation to intervene in any scenario where a nations leader is attacking the civilian population with the military. This opens up a gigantic can of worms.


7.)And another huge questions that has yet to be, and probably won't be, answered: What constitutes a "humanitarian mission"? How do we know that the Col. is slaughtering civilians in far flung Libyan towns? Is a nations leader fighting armed rebels an actions against civilians?

We are several days into major offensive actions and the "partners" in this mission have yet to even agree upon a command structure. What the fuck is going on?

[andreisdaman]

Reagan was an awesome president..he attacked Libya....I think he also attacked Panama...or was that Bush I?