arma virumque cano (et alia)
dang it, can't just retweet @crazylary51, but thanks! pic.twitter.com/jXau6b9dct @onecaliberal @MzDivah67— WizzyProbs (@WizzyProbs) February 9, 2015
dang it, can't just retweet @crazylary51, but thanks! pic.twitter.com/jXau6b9dct @onecaliberal @MzDivah67
Yeah that "Black Guy" is complicit in the ongoing criminal activity...ALL PRAISE BE TO OBAMA THE GREAT AND WISE MESSIAH...just a reminder from the messiah drink your kool aid and take your medication to be good members of the party....
Is your Obama hatred so strong you can't even stick to the topic?
We have been through this many times Mike. I think all criminal politicians should be held accountable were as you are willing to allow some to get away with murderer as long as they are a democrat and this one is extra special to ya because he is the "black guy".....My dislike of Obama as well as both baby Bush and his daddy along with Cheney and any other criminal politicians treasonous acts is well known they should ALL be held accountable....The "black guy" does not get a pass even if I did vote for him
I think the murder you keep referring to was a drone strike, is that right? Although I don't agree with the drone program, I wouldn't call that murder. The war crimes of Bush and Cheney, on the other hand, namely lying to the American people in order to start a war in Iraq, is beyond the pale.As I said, Bush and Cheney are true war criminals. Obama is just another politician.
Obama was supposed to stop this- not perpetuate it.
He did stop some.
And started others.
What did he start? I thought the big complaint was in continuing some of the wrong programs of the Bush Administration.
Lybia, Syria- these are not Bush holdovers. Then the Bush holdover of Afghanistan he amped up, then stayed on Bush's timeline for withdrawal in Iraq, and may even be going back in now.
An you compare that to the immensity of the original Iraq tragedy?
Again, you seem to be implying that he should be absolved of all criticism because Bush's war was "worse". He ran on an anti-war platform. I voted for him because he convinced me that he would stop the American war mongering- despite me being well aware of his position on gun rights. That's how much I opposed Bush. And he failed me. He failed every person that he convinced he would change the US policies in the middle east because he did the opposite.
" you seem to be implying that he should be absolved of all criticism because Bush's war was "worse"."I repeat, no, I'm not doing that at all. This post was about Bush and Cheney. I didn't bring up Obama.
So? Why can't we bring up the fact that Obama has perpetuated the war mongering that you are criticizing Bush for in this post? And your response to that was "Bush was worse!"- which is a position that looks like you are defending Obama. Why not just agree with me, if you really do?
The post itself brought him up, claiming he was unfairly blamed for everything Bush did wrong. Sorry, but it's disingenuous to act like talking about Obama's culpability for his own actions is outside the scope of this post.
Saying Bush was worse, is not the same as Obama "should be absolved of all criticism." That's where you misrepresented my position.
When I criticize Obama, your response has been to say "Bush was worse". Like this:"An you compare that to the immensity of the original Iraq tragedy?"(Which I didn't do, by the way)This is taking a defense of Obama position. Why not just say, "You're right TS, he has been a huge disappointment to me because of that too."
I repeat, "Saying Bush was worse, is not the same as Obama "should be absolved of all criticism." That's where you misrepresented my position."Isn't that right? Are you capable of admitting that you misrepresented what I said or not?
Mike, I was responding to this, which was a gross misrepresentation of my position:MikeB: "An you compare that to the immensity of the original Iraq tragedy?"You'll note though, that I said what your statement implies. I know you don't support a lot of Obama's Middle East choices (because I have a decent memory), which is why my main point is questioning why you don't just agree with the statements I made instead of mischaracterizing them and seemingly defending Obama with "Bush was worse!" retorts. I think you agree with me, but fall back on your instincts to defend Obama against any criticism from a political enemy of yours.
Chubby Checker has nothing on you, man.
Under Obama the war in Iraq ended, the war in Afghanistan ended, the Republican Congress would not let Obama close GITMO, the Patriot Act and other laws passed under Bush are law and Obama has to follow the law. With the facts staring you in the face all you can do is blame Obama. You are either totally partisan, or totally stupid.
"the Patriot Act and other laws passed under Bush are law and Obama has to follow the law."................Silvia Obama signed two extensions of a sun setting Patriot Act as well he signed an extension of the FISA ordered the murder a 16yr old boy etc etc etc.... and if you believe he has to follow the law please write to him and encourage him to do so because it looks like he and many presidents before him disagree with you.....A criminal politician is a criminal no matter which asinine political party he is in cahoots with.....
Good with the bad George, and Obama has done much more good. It has taken him 6 years to undo Bush's bad. You talk about one murder (?) Bush is responsible for the murder of 100's of thousands of innocent people.
Excuses Silvia...He is a criminal like the rest and you are defending him....shameful
Sorry, Obama haters, Bush and Cheney are bonafide war criminals. Obama is a pissant in comparison.
"Bush and Cheney are bonafide war criminals."....Agreed" Obama is a pissant".....Agreed
I don't know why you think we're supposed to like the guy just because somebody else was worse. Should you support Bush because Mussolini was worse?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/11/obama-aumf-congress-isis_n_6660208.htmlObama asks for WAR.....And the cycle continues
"Excuses" George? Seems you want to excuse a war criminal who ruined our economy. If that's your choice, fine. Not sure why you want to see America destroyed, but some do. TS, you don't have to like him, but it shows your ignorance to think he has not fixed a lot of the problems Bush left this country. To compare either Obama, or Bush to Mussolini is sick and certainly a low level of expectations for your leaders.
"Excuses" George? Seems you want to excuse a war criminal who ruined our economy. If that's your choice, fine. Not sure why you want to see America destroyed, but some do."......Read the thread again Fred I dislike Bushy 1 and 2 as much or more than Obama and the Bushys never got my vote like Obama did......You got any other false statements to make?......All politicians should be held accountable......
You have some serious reading comprehension issues. Clearly George Jefferson is not making excuses for Bush. He said he should be held accountable as a war criminal and charged with treason. Go back and read it if you have to. And why is it sick to say Mussolini was worse than Bush? This was in response to Mike chastising any criticism of Obama for the simple reason of "he's not as bad as the other guy". So I guess that gives him a pass to do roughly 90% of Bush's war mongering... My point was that Bush wasn't as bad as some other people too, so where does that leave us?The funny thing is, Mike agrees with George Jefferson and my assessment of Obama's policy decisions in the middle east- yet he still snaps at anyone who says it calling us "Obama haters". What gives, Mike?
You are trying to compare Bush's murderous acts to Obama's. If you can't differentiate between one murder and over 100,000 murders that's your delusion and to claim they are equal just shows how looney you are. Talk about false statements.To compare Mussolini to any US president is extremist garbage.
I'll go along with Fred. There is no comparison, so why make it?
Why can't one make comparisons? I didn't say they are equal, I said one is worse than the other- which coincidently you just did when you said that Bush was worse than Obama.
For those of you who choose to protect Obama Ill quote Fred...."Seems you want to excuse a war criminal who ruined our economy. If that's your choice, fine. Not sure why you want to see America destroyed, but some do"....though I do not believe O or B responsible for a good or bad economy except for the crushing debt they are both responsible forI will give you guys credit though...you are doing a better job of protecting Obama and his crimes than the Sec Service can manage to do.. Fred what in your opinion has Obama fixed and how?....."TS, you don't have to like him, but it shows your ignorance to think he has not fixed a lot of the problems Bush left this country."TS or I never compared Bush and Obama his point and correct me if I'm wrong TS was that they are both turds in the bowl and and should be flushed expeditiously to say one is worse than the other is illogical because the are both pieces of SHIT... It is actually many more than 1 murder Fred drone strike after drone strike after drone strike....." If you can't differentiate between one murder and over 100,000 murders that's your delusion and to claim they are equal just shows how looney you are."......Looney is to defend either they are BOTH criminals why cant you people call a criminal a criminal. Look I had high hopes for the guy too but hes turned out to a POS like the rest of them and I will not defend or excuse what he has done like you people on this blog seem comfortable doing...hopefully the next person will have some character and integrity but im doubting it
"Obama asks for WAR.....And the cycle continues "That's total bullshit. Bush and Cheney had us invade Iraq for NO REASON. Obama is beginning to get serious about what everyone in the world recognizes as a serious problem about which something has to be done.
"This was in response to Mike chastising any criticism of Obama for the simple reason of "he's not as bad as the other guy". So I guess that gives him a pass to do roughly 90% of Bush's war mongering..."I don't give Obama a pass. But I recognize the difference between Bush and Obama. Who's watch suffered the 9/11 attack? Who's had Osama bin Laden killed, not that I particularly approve of the way that was done. Obama did some great things - health care for one, while Bush's main claim to fame was the invasion of Iraq, one of the darkest periods of American history. Your "roughly 90%" remark is total bullshit.
Making unequal comparisons just means you are full of shit TS.George, Obama ruined the economy? You are full of shit also. OMG you have no clue what Obama has done to better our economic position since the day he took office from Bush. I can't even respond to such garbage. Obviously you don't read and have no clue what the economy was like the day Bush left office. Every drone strike is not a murder George, but it's nice for you to show all you have nothing but lies to back your ridiculous position. I don't except your fake support hoping Obama would do well when you lie so obviously about his record. Enjoy your delusions.
George Jefferson: "TS or I never compared Bush and Obama his point and correct me if I'm wrong TS was that they are both turds in the bowl and and should be flushed expeditiously to say one is worse than the other is illogical because the are both pieces of SHIT... "Yes, but I don't think if's illogical to call one "worse" than the other. My point is they are both bad. And for some reason when I point this out, Mike jumps all over me with "Bush was worse! Bush was worse!" Why do you do that, Mike? If I talk about the evils of what the Tucson shooter did, you don't jump in with "well, he wasn't as bad as the Newtown shooter." "Making unequal comparisons just means you are full of shit TS."I think you don't understand the meaning of the word "comparison".
Read it again Fred I actually said I do not blame him for the economy..Presidents get no credit from me for a good or bad economy"I don't except your fake support hoping Obama would do well when you lie so obviously about his record."......What lies have I told Fred....Let me help you Fred the answer is NONE.......Whether he a committed a thousand or one he is still a criminal who has betrayed the trust of the American people and violated his oath of office while routinely violating the Constitution and he should be held accountable for such....And what you except from me is of no concern to me..
Already answered George, I guess you can't read. Now on with your delusion........
"Mike jumps all over me with "Bush was worse! Bush was worse!" "No, I don't. This post was about Bush and Cheney. George Jefferson brought Obama into it. I was responding to that.
And you responded by defending Obama's Middle East policy. If you support what he's doing, fine, just say that. I guess I'm more anti-war than you. But you also act like you don't support these wars, in which case I have to ask why you're arguing with me?
I didn't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but I will probably support whatever action is taken against ISIS. To me, it seems like we were way too quick to make war where it wasn't necessary and way to slow to do so where it is.
OK Freddie ..George will tell you about the rabbits
You conservative nut jobs call that drone strike murder, that hasn't been proven. Why do gun loons lie George?
Great, we agree on something. Why was that so hard? But I don't expect the US to have any more luck getting rid of ISIS than they did Saddam, Al Qaeda or the Taliban. If you chop one head off, two grow in its place.
Very well Sammie since you and Freddie are the same person anyway you can tend the rabbits as well....And your prophet admitted to it Fresamdra
With the measures proposed so far, I'm afraid you're right about our chances, TS. Airstrikes and targeted drone strikes will just lop off a few heads and let the new ones spring up.I'm afraid that the only thing that might stop ISIS and give the others a bit of pause is a campaign that I can best describe as principled brutality. What I would envision is a declaration of war followed by setting forth certain basic principles such as the protection of people living under ISIS's boot and not harming non-combatants. Also, set forth penalties for anything done like in Abu Graihb and make it clear that we will no longer be coming up with special classes of captives that are almost but not quite POW's. (In other words, things that should always be part of how we wage war.) Beyond that, I believe we should make it clear that we are going to exterminate ISIS. Once we surround one of their strongholds, give an offer to surrender with the threat of no quarter for their fighters and leadership. If it is refused, follow through on the threat. For those who do surrender, they should be tried according to whatever war crimes they committed. Since Syria is a failed state, we can provide the courts--they can hire council or have a JAG officer appointed; use locals as the jury. Any death penalties can be executed by firing squad to prevent the repayment of their brutality in kind.A campaign like this would require ground troops and would result in loss of life, so I would make it voluntary, even for those already in the service--don't send anyone with any questions about the rectitude of the cause or the plan.I don't think this would be a silver bullet for this strain of theology, or for others like it, but I believe that such a policy would dramatically raise the costs of war for them and embolden those people of good will in the region who would see that we mean what we say when we claim to support them. It would also give a positive example for a region where governments have often fallen into patterns of either winking at terrorism or engaging in atrocities of their own to keep these elements in line.I'd be interested in hearing any critiques, criticisms, or improvements.
Why does it have to Americans?
Peter,It doesn't have to be, but I would prefer that we either get involved or keep out. I don't trust proxy wars--we have too much history of supporting monsters on our side to keep other monsters in check--e.g. Saddam to fight the Iranians, etc. Right now, the best bet for someone in the region to take ISIS down seems to be Jordan. I admit that I like that Abdullah seems to be stepping up to the plate, but I don't know if he'll finish the job, and I also worry that his quoting Clint Eastwood lines about killing them and their families and burning the house down on them might not be actual hyperbole. I don't like the idea of backing someone who might slaughter indiscriminately.I've misplaced my copy and can't remember the quote well enough to see if it was something Heinlein took from someone else, but I remember a line in Starship Troopers about the one who buy's the meat being brother to the butcher.
I hate to say it, but I'd like to see the Marines go in there and destroy those fanatics. I'm seeing them more and more as a real threat. I predict that's what will happen, and as much as I'd like to be a pacifist, I think it's the right thing.
I think just our being there stirs up our enemies.That was one of Ben Laden's claims anyways. Talk about causation, maybe our imperialistic behavior in that area was the cause of their hating us? Seems they are headed for a civil war, to determine who will rule and maybe we should let that war happen. Syria and Egypt have gone on the offensive since recent executions, and I think it's best to let the locals do the fighting. Experts say we can't win without troops on the ground. Let those troops be the local people. I'm all for air strikes, arming those troops, intelligence help, etc.. The more they attack local people, the more the local people will respond.
"I hate to say it, but I'd like to see the Marines go in there and destroy those fanatics."..............Are you willing to get on a plane and go do it yourself Mike?????......If not you should not be asking for others to do it for you....no matter what your age is if you want to wage war then get off your ass and do it yourself
Peter,I agree that it can stir them up, and yes, Bin Ladin did cite our presence in the Arabian Peninsula as one of his grievances, though he also cited support of Israel and support of governments he disliked--pretty much all of them. Us being on the ground might stir them up a little more than us supporting the locals, but either one can be used by them as a recruiting tool.As for Jordan and Egypt's actions, I hope they will be successful. Thank God the Egyptian military ousted the Muslim Brotherhood government--I don't think it would have been too offended by the execution of Copts--might have issued a strongly worded statement, but I doubt they would have started air strikes.As for the causation notion, I think that is taking things a bit far where certain groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS are concerned. I think they used anger at imperialism to pull people in, but I don't think it is the base cause which is their interpretation of their religion. The people leading these movements are motivated by a desire to unite the Muslim world under a caliphate, and then to conquer the world. When they start gaining territory and ground, I think it behooves everyone to squish them as it would be hard for any blowback to reach the same level of danger posed by not stopping them early.
Mike,Maybe pacifism isn't, exactly, the right thing to aspire to, though I don't know that there's a similarly easy word to sum up a proper position. I could never call myself a pacifist, but peace is the thing I want to see. I just think that it is a thing so valuable that it is worth buying with a fight when the other side is determined to destroy it as groups like ISIS are.W's second inaugural address was all about bringing democracy to the Middle East. While I think this was a laudable goal (and I think he was honest about wanting this rather than to rape the region ((him, not necessarily others around him))), I don't think it was something worth opening all the horrors of war for. I prefer to save that for defensive situations and the occasional exceptional evil, like this expansionist genocide, that needs to be answered as soon as possible.
".Are you willing to get on a plane and go do it yourself Mike?????"No, I'm not, George. You're simplistic challenge is bullshit. My point is that a major invasion of our armed forces would be justified now in a way it has not been since World War II. And as Peter said we should get the fuck out of everybody else's business because the backlash is worse than the evil we're trying to prevent in those cases.
"W's second inaugural address was all about bringing democracy to the Middle East. While I think this was a laudable goal (and I think he was honest about wanting this rather than to rape the region ((him, not necessarily others around him)))"I disagree with you 100%. Bush would have to have been as dumb as his harshest critics say, something I don't believe, to not have known that bringing democracy to the middle east was code for invading countries where we could get away with it and spend billions to make the military industrial complex very happy. He had to have known that Iraq and Saddam Hussain had nothing to do with 9/11 and that his buddies in Saudi Arabia did. He wasn't too hot to bring democracy to the Saudis was he?
Mike,I don't think he would have to have been dumb; just naive. When I was a child, I thought as a child, and so there exists footage of a 16 or 17 year old me on the stage behind Bush during his first run--back when I didn't think he was the best candidate, but I thought he was decent. In the years after that I saw him compromise principles, expand executive authority, etc. I also learned to think more critically and to evaluate some of the neocon philosophy that had seemed to make sense to my younger self.By that second inaugural address I didn't buy that as a legitimate justification, but four years earlier I might well have. I've seen others follow a similar path over time, so it is easily conceivable to me that Bush was a true believer in what he was selling in that speech, not because of stupidity, but because of naivete and buying into a wrong philosophy. It's also conceivable to me that he's straight evil and just a damn good actor. I just don't come down on that side because I've looked him in the eye in person, however briefly, and during his televised speeches, and he never gave me the willies the way some people like Huckabee have. Everybody has to make their own call on something like that, but there's my 2 cents worth.As for the notion that this is the first intervention you find acceptable since WWII, would you agree that we need to do something we haven't done since then and declare war rather than just have some shitty "Authorization of Military Force"?I think that all of these "authorizations", whatever name we used in each case, have been one of the biggest things that has led to all of the military adventurism, second only to our disregard of the founders' advice on large standing armies.
"No, I'm not, George. You're simplistic challenge is bullshit." ....How is it bullshit Mike you think war is justified yet you are unwilling to put your ass on the line for it that's the real bullshit.....The US Europe and China and Japan should get out of the whole regions business and stop buying their oil...and let them go back to doing what they were doing before the oil boom...If not for the commodities found in that region the rest of the world would not give a squirt of piss for anyone in that region
You need more history SJ. Who drew the lines over there anyways? Who ousted whose democratically elected leader and put in their puppet as Shaw? And on, and on, and on , and on...........
Peter,You need to watch out making incorrect assumptions about people. I've read plenty about the history. I know what we did with the Shah, I know what the British did promising Greater Palestine to the Jews and the Arabs at the same time, I know how the French screwed with their mandate, I know the theological differences between Sunnis and Shia, and the subgroups and heretical sects from Alawite and Druze to Salafi, Sufi, and Wahabi. I've gone beyond the books and have friends from several countries there; acquaintances from all. Every country that touched the region screwed it over, and the leaders there screwed each other and the people over.All that being said, your response was a non-response. I had already allowed that imperialism played a role, explained that there were other factors I saw as more basic to certain groups, and suggested that the solution you offered would simply be seen, by our opponents, as more of the same thing like propping up the Shah.So exactly which of those points were you intending to say was wrong, and why is it wrong?
SJ, you need to stop making stupid statements that are proven wrong by history.And stop treating everyone on this blog that disagrees with you as inferior to yourself. You only come over as an egotistical asshole.
Hmm, more general remarks about "wrong history" and no specifics offered. Too bad. Discussion had possibilities before you started behaving like all the other sound alike commenters here.
The Shaw, Bin Laden, etc., those are specifics SJ. Obviously you are just like the others who comment here; changing the issue, not addressing what was said, and simply claiming someone is wrong because it doesn't match up with your opinion. Facts are a stubborn thing, that's why I use them. It's easy to say I'm wrong, a little harder to prove history is wrong. Enjoy yourself.
"would you agree that we need to do something we haven't done since then and declare war rather than just have some shitty "Authorization of Military Force"?I think that all of these "authorizations", whatever name we used in each case, have been one of the biggest things that has led to all of the military adventurism, second only to our disregard of the founders' advice on large standing armies."What's the difference what we call it? The point is that since WWII there has not been a true motive to go to war. I think ISIS is providing one. Do you mean the US should not have a "large standing army?"
"Do you mean the US should not have a "large standing army?".....I for one think the budget for the US military and all its ancillary agencys CIA NSA etc etc including the black budgets should be no more than 9% of GDP not the current 20 plus %....We spend far too much blood and money protecting the interests of other nations and organizations as well as corporations...its far past time for our so called allies to share equally in the cost of their protection
In other words, you made a stupid remark about "disregard of the founders' advice on large standing armies."Even with 9% of our GDP dedicated to military spending, we'd still have a helluva standing army. Right?
Right TS, you are comparing a guy who killed 100's of thousands with his lies to one kid killed by a drone and you call that equal comparison? You are nuts. Me and Sammie (to bad you can't spell) Sammy are not the same. Seems he jumped in because your statements are so full of shit, but I do agree with him.
"To[sic] bad I can't spell"?I'm not a good speller. I would be hopeless without spellchecker. But I certainly would never misspell a word in the very sentence where I criticize someone's spelling. I'd be more careful than that- lest I look like a fool.And by the way, I never said anything about drone strikes, and Obama's wars have certainly killed more than one kid. How many died in Afghanistan since he made the decision to step that war up a notch? Plus Libya (hey, spellcheck didn't fail me this time), Syria, and Iraq after he should have pulled out like he promised.
Nice try TS, you can misspell, but I can't. Thanks for that hypocritical BS. There you go with your non comparable comparison again. It was not a lie on Obama's part that the war in Afghanistan needed more men to win the situation, which he did. It certainly was a lie on Bush's part to invade Iraq. Remember the "mushroom cloud" threat. That's OK you base your explanations on lies, OK with me if that's the way you logic works. Now on with your spelling complaints since that's all you got. HA HA HA
"Nice try TS, you can misspell, but I can't. Thanks for that hypocritical BS."Oh, you can misspell and I can't. I should have know that's your standard.My rule is I only criticize spelling errors in the actual statements when someone is criticizing someone else's spelling. I find that pretty fair. You haven't found me criticizing your spelling mistakes outside of that rule, have you?
So you liked the war Bush started in Afghanistan (to catch the guy hiding in Pakistan), but not the one in Iraq, is that it? See, I opposed both of them. I guess I am more anti-war than you.
Of course I never said that but lies are usual from you. Now on with your spelling error complaints, which is all you got. HA HA HA
You started the spelling error complaints. The only time I did it was to point out the spelling error in your actual spelling error complaint to me. Come on, did you really expect to get a pass on that?
"Of course I never said that but lies are usual from you."I asked a question to you if you supported Bush's war in Afghanistan. Did you, or did you not support it? Did you, or did you not then support Obama ramping up that war resulting in the loss of more lives including innocent lives?
If you stop lying about what I said, I might respond. You have to treat people with respect, if you want to get respect. On with your lies, TS, enjoy yourself.
I asked you a question about your opinion on the Afghan war. How is asking you a question "lying about what you said"?TS: "So you liked the war Bush started in Afghanistan (to catch the guy hiding in Pakistan), but not the one in Iraq, is that it?"See that question mark at the end of my "lie"? I'm asking you if you supported the Afghan war when Bush started it, and also if you supported Obama ramping in up in order to "win the situation", as you said.
Thanks for proving me correct and printing more of your garbage. I await your net lies.