What's new

"Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined."

I wonder what is the standard allowable cruise missile launches before someone loses the Nobel Prize?

Obama: "How many have we fired so far?"
Gates: "I think 317 Mr. President."
Obama: "OK fire 2 more. If we hit 320 I lose my Nobel Prize."
Gates: "Mr. President, we don't have any targets right now."
Obama: "Just hit some random village or whatever."
Gates: "Yessir."
 
So what's wrong with stopping the mass genocide of some ruthless dictator?

I just wish repubs could at least be consistent. If Saddam was such a bad guy, then what makes Gaddafi so good?
 
So what's wrong with stopping the mass genocide of some ruthless dictator?

I just wish repubs could at least be consistent. If Saddam was such a bad guy, then what makes Gaddafi so good?

Convenient of you to ignore the massive democrat flip-flop. Obama the Hero eliminating the world of Ghadaffi, who has killed 10's of thousands of people in his own and neighboring countries. But Bush the Spawn of Hitler and Satan himself for taking out the 3rd worse mass murderer in history, with in the neighborhood of 2 million dead at his hand. Both are horrific atrocities of humanity that need to be put down, but it is telling how split and jaded America is that one side lauds one act and demonizes the other, then the whole thing flip-flops when the different party is in command.

United we stand...

Personally I will be glad when both are gone, and I don't really care who does it.
 
Convenient of you to ignore the massive democrat flip-flop. Obama the Hero eliminating the world of Ghadaffi, who has killed 10's of thousands of people in his own and neighboring countries. But Bush the Spawn of Hitler and Satan himself for taking out the 3rd worse mass murderer in history, with in the neighborhood of 2 million dead at his hand. Both are horrific atrocities of humanity that need to be put down, but it is telling how split and jaded America is that one side lauds one act and demonizes the other, then the whole thing flip-flops when the different party is in command.

United we stand...

Personally I will be glad when both are gone, and I don't really care who does it.

I don't have a problem with destroying dictators but Obama and his media buddies are being complete hypocrites on this and it is pretty despicable after the way they treated Bush.

Obama: "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." There was not an actual or imminent threat to our nation from Libya.
 
Simple 2 questions...

How the hell do we have money to wage 3 wars and to give MILLIONS in foreign aid to Egypt and Libya, for them to "accomplish their dreams" while Americans are currently struggling to accomplish their own?

What kind of logic do we have when we allow our government to throw away trillions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya, and yet these same politicians bitch about a few thousand that teachers in our own society are given?

So what's wrong with stopping the mass genocide of some ruthless dictator?

I just wish repubs could at least be consistent. If Saddam was such a bad guy, then what makes Gaddafi so good?

A walking contradiction complaining about consistency.

I don't have a problem with destroying dictators but Obama and his media buddies are being complete hypocrites on this and it is pretty despicable after the way they treated Bush.

Obama: "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." There was not an actual or imminent threat to our nation from Libya.

Pay attention to the key word. This went through NATO. Either way, it's kind of dumb IMO that a president has power under NATO but not unilaterally. That's an argument for and against sovereignty all in one.
 
A walking contradiction complaining about consistency.



Pay attention to the key word. This went through NATO. Either way, it's kind of dumb IMO that a president has power under NATO but not unilaterally. That's an argument for and against sovereignty all in one.

In this case unilaterally means without congressional approval.
 
Top