Author Topic: Obama's illegal war  (Read 67046 times)

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #150 on: March 22, 2011, 05:19:42 PM »
lol

Here is an interesting read on Presidential War Powers and how the whole thing has been perverted over the years.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63748
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #151 on: March 22, 2011, 05:37:33 PM »
Here is an interesting read on Presidential War Powers and how the whole thing has been perverted over the years.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods45.html

It is an interesting read.  He makes some good points, but sounds like he has an agenda, referring to "neoconservatives" and accusing people who disagree with him of being dishonest.  I'm sure there is opposing commentary out there.  Many of his opinions are not sourced. 

I think we could have a problem with this current action if Congress fails to pass a resolution approving of the air strikes.

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #152 on: March 22, 2011, 05:39:52 PM »
It is an interesting read.  He makes some good points, but sounds like he has an agenda, referring to "neoconservatives" and accusing people who disagree with him of being dishonest.  I'm sure there is opposing commentary out there.  Many of his opinions are not sourced. 

I think we could have a problem with this current action if Congress fails to pass a resolution approving of the air strikes.

There is a reason the framers divided the powers, and I think this kida crap with sending troops in is a prime example
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63748
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #153 on: March 22, 2011, 05:47:03 PM »
There is a reason the framers divided the powers, and I think this kida crap with sending troops in is a prime example

Presidents have been making an end run around the Congressional declaration of war, but the major military actions have all been ratified by Congress, so kind of a moot point.  Same thing will probably happen with Libya.  I doubt a majority of Congressmen will have the stones to vote down a resolution. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #154 on: March 22, 2011, 07:56:14 PM »
GLOBAL JIHAD

Look who's in line to replace Gadhafi
'At the right time they will make the move, and we will see Shariah'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 22, 2011
8:20 pm Eastern


By Michael Carl
© 2011 WorldNetDaily



Anjem Choudary




 British cleric Anjem Choudary says al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood have assets on the ground in Libya and are ready to take control if Moammar Gadhafi is removed from power.

The top Muslim cleric accuses the U. S. and French-led coalition trying to topple Gadhafi of working to install a puppet regime, but he says there are al-Qaida operatives in Libya who will stop the West from installing a friendly government.

"Al-Qaida has their own agents and their own people in the region who are propagating their own Islamic ideas and their agenda. At the right time they will make the move, and we will see the emergence of Islam and Shariah in that particular region," Choudary said.

Read "The Stoning of Soraya M." – the true story that inspired the movie

"The power vacuum is very useful for anyone who has an agenda and an alternative system to put in its place," he said.



"Al-Qaida is in fact a philosophy and an idea which is franchised now all around the world. You don't necessarily have to be a member of al-Qaida. If you believe in the Shariah and if you believe in the concept of jihad, and you want Islam to be implemented, then you are adhering to the same ideas as the people of al-Qaida," said Choudary.

(Story continues below)

     


"This is widespread throughout Africa and the more these people resist against oppression, the more they see the Americans, the British and the French bombing Muslims, the more they will be drawn towards Shariah as an alternative," Choudary said.

Florida Security Council President Tom Trento agrees.

"He is telling the truth, because North Africa from Cairo going West has deep penetration by the Muslim Brotherhood. We also know that Gadhafi is hated by and hates the Brotherhood and al-Qaida," Trento said.

"We also know that al-Qaida has their heart set on controlling petroleum. Libya is the No. 4 producer. There is no bigger prize in northern Africa than Libya right now," Trento said.

He said Choudary is in a position to know if the Brotherhood or al-Qaida is poised to move if Gadhafi is removed.

"Choudary has deep analytical connections to a variety of organizations. He is the sort of philosophical mind for al-Qaida. He is a confidante of Osama bin Laden," Trento said.

Trento is certain that these connections give Choudary inside information on whether al-Qaida is able to make such a power play if Gadhafi is gone from Libya.

Choudary's comments came after he and other leaders of the outlawed Al-Muhajiroun organization gathered in front of the prime minister's residence at No. 10 Downing Street in London to protest the British and American actions in Libya.

The press release for the protest said the operation is the latest example of American and British opposition to Islam.

"Under the guise of helping the people, once again we see the full might of the U.S. and its stooges, i.e. the British and French, murdering Muslim men, women and children in cold blood," Choudary's statement read.

"Yet again we see the fig-leaf excuse of defending democracy and freedom being used to justify atrocities against Muslims. The reality is that the Americans and the institutions that they control, such as the U.N. and Security Council, will do everything in their power to ensure that the Muslims do not rise to implement the Shariah and threaten their military and economic interests in the region," Choudary's statement said.

Choudary's statement also claims that the military action is to cover up how the U. S. has benefitted from Gadhafi's rule over the years.

"The clear truth is that the U.S., British and French have benefited from their puppets like Gadhafi and Mubarak for decades, they have been complicit in their torture of Muslims, they have even rendered Muslims to such countries to be tortured, all in order to stop the spread of Islam and for Muslims not to rise to establish the Islamic state which would spell the end of their hegemony," Choudary's statement asserted.

Jihad Watch publisher and Islam analyst Robert Spencer says that Choudary's accusation that the U. S. and French-led coalition plans to install a puppet regime is giving the coalition way too much credit.

"Anjem Choudary is being a bit fanciful in suggesting the coalition that is attacking Gadhafi now from the West is going to install some Western puppet government," Spencer analyzed.

"The glaring omission in this whole enterprise has been any discussion or any hint that anyone in this coalition has any idea of what's going to follow Gadhafi at all or has made any provision for a post-Gadhafi Libya," he observed.



But Spencer supports the analysts who say that radical Islam groups are on the ground in Libya and are prepared to take control.

"That's the big problem with it, that the largest organized forces in Libya opposing Gadhafi are Islamic supremacist, pro-Shariah groups, including al-Qaida. So they're most likely to be the beneficiaries of this intervention," Spencer said.

Spencer added that because al-Qaida is in Libya, even if the Western coalition removes Gadhafi, the civil war will continue until the jihadi forces prevail.

Trento added that the U.S. is making it safe for jihad in North Africa and that the administration is making a tactical error by supporting the removal of Gadhafi.

"I regard very highly Ambassador John Bolton, but this morning he made the statement that, 'Whoever comes next,' with the assumption that, 'I don't know who's coming next,' can't be as bad and as anti-American as Moammar Gadhafi," he said.

"I thought, 'How can you base national policy in the hope that the next isn't as bad as the man in power and a man that we can manage to some extent?'" Trento added.



Choudary seems to echo that thought, because he says that the West's intervention to topple Gadhafi wasn't necessary. He says that Gadhafi's days were already numbered.

"The Muslims in Libya are rising against oppression and calling for Islam and the Shariah. This is evident in the chants of the people. Many people believe that they're fighting in jihad against Gadhafi and his own regime," Choudary claimed.

"The removal of Gadhafi was something that was going to be done anyway by the people in Libya. The removal of all dictators is on our agenda. We do not need the Americans, the British and French to come in and bomb Baghdad, and bomb Kabul and bomb Tripoli in order to remove leaders," Choudary added.

Choudary and his supporters took their cause to the British prime minister's residence. The demonstration followed what Choudary called an urgent weekend conference on the status of the worldwide Muslim Ummah.

The Paltalk-hosted Web conference was a forum for some of the British Commonwealth's most radical clerics to take shots at British and American foreign policy and to talk up Islamic law, or Shariah.

Choudary associate Abu Izzadeen was at the protest and a speaker at the conference, and he says that both events are commentaries on the anti-Islamic West.

"It was a commentary on the rise of Muslims around the world and the awareness of the need for change. That change is not hearkening back to the same promises we've had broken for many years of freedom and democracy and liberty, etc.," Izzadeen asserted.



"Those slogans only brought to us humiliation and subjugation. What we need is an independent system where we are free from Western domination. It's not about changing a particular person or an individual. It's about changing a whole system," he said.

Choudary's openness about his intentions has created controversy during his American media appearances. MSNBC TV host Elliot Spitzer has said Choudary should be in prison, and Fox News Channel and nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity has called Choudary evil.

Spencer said that Choudary attracts attention because he's open about his intentions.

"He attracts so much attention among such people (the pro-freedom and anti-Shariah groups) because he is so forthright about these objectives of Islamic jihad where most Islamic spokesmen dissemble about them. He is easy to point to and say, 'This is the real agenda here,' because he's the one who's being honest about it," Spencer explained.

Spencer adds that Choudary is this open about his intentions because the British imam knows most Americans don't take him seriously.



"He knows that most Americans don't care, won't pay attention and won't take him seriously and don't realize that what he's expressing is the broad mainstream of Islamic teaching and not some radical offshoot like the KKK or something like that," Spencer said.

"He knows that most Americans won't realize the implications of what they're hearing and he feels free to say what he wishes."



Read more: Look who's in line to replace Gadhafi http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=278105#ixzz1HO5u7ACO


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #155 on: March 22, 2011, 07:57:41 PM »
Germans Pull Forces Out of NATO as Libyan Coalition Falls Apart
dailymail.com ^ | Last updated at 11:42 PM on 22nd March 2011 | By Daily Mail Reporter




Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.

A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.


(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #156 on: March 22, 2011, 08:02:22 PM »
Cost of Libyan war could wipe out GOP budget cuts
American Thinker ^ | 3/22/11 | Rick Moran



This shows how pitifully small the GOP's cuts in the $1.5 trillion deficit are. The Hill:

U.S. military operations in Libya could wipe out a significant chunk of the budget cuts won by congressional Republicans in recent weeks, defense analysts say.

GOP leaders have trumpeted enacted spending reductions that amount to more than $285 million per day since the beginning of March. But defense analysts say the Pentagon could be burning through more than $100 million per day in Libya, putting those budget savings at risk.

In separate briefings on Monday, the Defense Department and the White House said they do not yet have a projected price tag for the military action that began on Saturday. Defense officials said they are still "collecting" and analyzing early costs.

With Congress determined to rein in federal spending, the cost of the U.S. intervention is sure to become a top concern on Capitol Hill.

Dick Lugar has already raised the issue as part of the reason he is opposing the intervention in Libya. You can't fight a war on the cheap - not when the weapons systems and deployments are so expensive. Might this spur Republicans to deepen the cuts and try to make a real dent in the deficit?

Don't hold your breath...



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #157 on: March 22, 2011, 08:13:16 PM »
Gaddafi isn't going anywhere, and the US is going to be left holding bag as the coalition dissolves, fucking brilliant
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #158 on: March 22, 2011, 08:14:46 PM »
Gaddafi isn't going anywhere, and the US is going to be left holding bag as the coalition dissolves, fucking brilliant

check the other thread.  exactly right kazan. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #159 on: March 22, 2011, 08:23:43 PM »
Obama Tries to Patch Rift on Libya Role as Strikes Go On
 Source: The NY Times



WASHINGTON — Explosions rocked Tripoli on Tuesday in a fourth day of airstrikes, but forces loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi showed no signs of ending their sieges of rebel-held cities, as the Security Council has demanded, while President Obama spoke on Tuesday with the French and British leaders in an effort to defuse a disagreement among the allies over how to manage the military action against Libya.

...

Divisions persisted among the allies on Tuesday over how the campaign should continue and under whose command, though the NATO countries seemed to be making progress on an arrangement that would retain a substantial role for NATO while addressing French concerns about putting the military alliance fully in charge.

“What we’re saying right now is that NATO has a key role to play here,” Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser, told reporters aboard Air Force One.

Speaking to reporters in San Salvador on Tuesday, Mr. Obama said “I have absolutely no doubt” that the allies will agree on a plan to transfer control from the United States to the international coalition.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/world/africa/23libya....
 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #160 on: March 22, 2011, 08:30:23 PM »
Obama to Congress: What I Decided in Libya is Constitutional, Even Though I Said it Wasn't
Pundit Press ^ | 3/22/11 | Aurelius


Rather than speak to the American people or Congress directly on his decision to establish a no-fly zone over Libya, President Obama sent a letter to Congress explaining his actions. Here are the choicest quotes from the letter. Oh, and remember, President Obama was a Constitutional "Scholar" (emphasis mine):

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya...

Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

You know, I could have sworn that Obama said that George W. Bush couldn't attack Iraq, even though Congress approved use of force. Oh wait, here's his quote from 2007:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Sigh. What a hypocrite.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MM2K

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1401
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #161 on: March 23, 2011, 01:01:01 AM »
Now correct me if Im wrong, becuase I havenet been following this thing very closely. From what I understand, if we had done this no fly zone a couple of weeks ago, chances are the rebels would have won, but now since we dithered, there is a very low chance of beating Ghadaffi now. If this is correct that does not bode well for OBama at all. It is basically the worst of both decisions - which are to act and not to act.
Jan. Jobs: 36,000!!

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #162 on: March 23, 2011, 03:56:09 AM »
video is unreal.  people shooting and beating the shit out of one another.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #163 on: March 23, 2011, 04:36:39 AM »
This whole shit show is already turning into another WTF moment for obama, like millions others.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #164 on: March 23, 2011, 05:04:52 AM »
Camp Lejeune Marines To Libya
WCTI ABC ^


http://www.wcti12.com/news/27257042/detail.html


________________________ __________________


We've seen Camp Lejuene marines in Iraq and Afghanistan and now they are joining the fight against Libya. 2200 marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, or 26th MEU will take part. Their mission is to help end the violence directed at the Libyan people.

"In Libya right now they are doing exactly what we need them to do. They are doing what they are told and right now that's protecting Libyan people against Qadhafi forces," said Captain Timothy Patrick, a marine with the 26th MEU.

A press release from the 26th MEU reads, in part:

"Protecting the innocent and conducting combined operations are what we are designed to do, our forces are doing both as part of the U.S commitment to protect Libyan citizens."

Patrick says that marines from the 26th MEU are coming on the end of their deployment. They will be replaced with marines from the 22nd MEU.


(Excerpt) Read more at wcti12.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #165 on: March 23, 2011, 05:09:02 AM »
Fighting words between European allies overshadow Libyan mission

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/03/22/libya.nato.squabbling




Gioia Del Colle, Italy (CNN) -- Even as British RAF Typhoons took to the skies from this southern Italian air base, there was mounting tension between allies about who should command the mission to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly zone in Libya.

After heated exchanges between NATO ambassadors in Brussels, the alliance announced Tuesday an operation to enforce the arms embargo against Libya. But it went no further on deciding if or when NATO would take command of the mission already under way, in which several allies are participating.

In a statement, NATO only said that it had plans on the table to enforce the no-fly zone "if needed."

The backdrop was a simmering feud between France and Italy that turned more cynical by the hour. Italy is demanding that NATO take a lead role in the military and political decision-making during the remainder of the Libyan mission.

But resistance within the alliance mounted even as the United States expressed its desire to take a back seat in the operation and hand over any command role to European allies. France seemed most reluctant to submit to NATO command, but Germany and Turkey also voiced objections.

These countries also argue that Arab League nations would be shut out of any decision-making if NATO took control.

German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said he continues to believe it was right not to participate in the United Nations-sanctioned mission. He noted that Germany is not alone in its skeptical view of military action, pointing to the fact that other European nations are not taking part either.

Westerwelle also refused to comment on whether NATO should take a leading role in enforcing U.N. resolution 1973.

"That is for the coalition of the willing to debate," Westerwelle said.

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe told French media that NATO would play a role in the mission in coming days but that France, Britain and a council of other coalition partners would make political decisions. One NATO official described this to CNN as putting the alliance's assets at the disposal of the coalition, but NATO would have no formal political role.

The squabbling continued as Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini again threatened to take back complete control of Italian airbases if NATO did not take the reins of the mission.

"Who, if not NATO, can take on this task?" said Frattini in comments to Italian media.

Some Italian politicians sought to settle old colonial scores by cynically noting that if France was allowed to lead this mission, it would get all the Libyan oil contracts and Italy would get all the Libyan refugees.

On a busy day at the Gioia Del Colle Air Base in southern Italy, RAF Typhoons executed a number of sorties to enforce the no-fly zone in Libya.

"The Italian support is crucial," said Royal Air Force Commander, Group Captain Sammy Sampson, but added that his fighters could operate from other locations. "It's a decision for our headquarters and our political masters."

Discussions between NATO allies will continue this week as the alliance continues to disagree over the parameters and scope of the U.N. resolution that authorized all means necessary to protect civilians in Libya, as well as imposing a no-fly zone over the country.

As well as disagreeing over whether Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi is a legitimate target, there is the question of whether Libya will split along tribal lines or whether a united Libya is even a possibility. There is no appetite among coalition allies to get involved in a tribal grudge match or civil war.

Turkey, also a NATO member, also voiced its opposition to a political role for the alliance and has forcefully suggested that the mission so far has already gone beyond the intention of the U.N. resolution to protect civilians. However, one NATO source told CNN that they did not see Turkey's objections so far as a major stumbling block to a further role for NATO.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #166 on: March 23, 2011, 05:14:14 AM »
U.S. Role in Libya Already Costs Hundreds of Millions (With no money to pay for it)
Fox News ^ | 3/23/2011 | fox news




The cost of the American and European assault on Libya already easily tops hundreds of millions of dollars, and has the potential to rise significantly if the operation drags on for weeks or months.

Coalition efforts to undermine Muammar al-Qaddafi’s air defenses and save the rebels from defeat have lasted for four nights already. If the U.S. role continues to be limited, with the Pentagon using its existing budget to cover the expense, the price tag on involvement will only rise moderately.

As of Tuesday, a U.S. defense official told Fox News the U.S. has fired 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Libyan territory, with 24 missiles being fired overnight Monday into Tuesday. Each missile is priced at $1 million to $1.5 million apiece and dispatched B-2 stealth bombers -- round-trip from Missouri -- to drop 2,000-pound bombs on Libyan sites.

That’s a total flying time of 25 hours, with the operating cost for one hour priced at least $10,000.

Yet those numbers only provide part of the costs. The B-2 bombers require expensive fuel -- and rely on air tankers to refuel in flight -- and probably needed parts replaced upon their return to Whiteman Air Force Base. The pilots most certainly will get combat pay.


(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #167 on: March 23, 2011, 06:03:37 AM »

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #168 on: March 23, 2011, 06:19:05 AM »
If you were President, what would you do 3333

blacken700

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 11873
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #169 on: March 23, 2011, 06:20:46 AM »
Obama observe the now 37 year old War Powers Act... which lets a POTUS act unilaterally in a fast changing situation such as this, but states that s/he has to get Congressional authorization within 60 days, extendable to 90 if circumstances require it:

[SEC. 5. (b)

Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Such sixty-day period shall be extended for not more than an additional thirty days if the President determines and certifies to the Congress in writing that unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of United States Armed Forces requires the continued use of such armed forces in the course of bringing about a prompt removal of such forces.]


Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39423
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #170 on: March 23, 2011, 06:21:29 AM »
If you were President, what would you do 3333

Pick my NCAA brackets, go on world tours, scarf down kob beef, champaign, lobster tails, have nightly parties at the WH, break the national bank, pass all sorts of WTF laws, ignore the economy, appoint all sorts of communist rabble to high level appointments, etc.    

Option D

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 17367
  • Kelly the Con Way
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #171 on: March 23, 2011, 06:23:03 AM »
Pick my NCAA brackets, go on world tours, scarf down kob beef, champaign, lobster tails, have nightly parties at the WH, break the national bank, pass all sorts of WTF laws, ignore the economy, appoint all sorts of communist rabble to high level appointments, etc.    

this is why a serious conversation is impossible with you.. but it does speak to another point with you...but im not trying to beat a dead horse..

Jadeveon Clowney

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5936
  • The life is like a case of chocolate bonbon.
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #172 on: March 23, 2011, 06:38:52 AM »
this is why a serious conversation is impossible with you.. but it does speak to another point with you...but im not trying to beat a dead horse..

If I was president I sure as hell wouldn't go on a wild goose chase in the Middle East.  Plenty of problems at home to focus on. 

theonlyone

  • Guest
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #173 on: March 23, 2011, 06:41:05 AM »
 Again

Fury

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 21026
  • All aboard the USS Leverage
Re: Obama's illegal war
« Reply #174 on: March 23, 2011, 06:41:31 AM »
We've already dropped close to 1/2 a billion dollars on Libya. And for what? Obama still hasn't even laid out what the end-game is. What a sick joke this is.