The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-04-2014, 12:22 PM   #676
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
You are either blind or you don't want to see it.
Well how about pointing out the actionable intelligence in your post?
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:26 PM   #677
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,115

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Well how about pointing out the actionable intelligence in your post?
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:27 PM   #678
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
I think it's very possible that the WH was trying to smuggle illegal military assets into Syria which were coming from Libya. There's simply no other "reasonable" explanation as to why the State Department ignored the security problem at the consolate, nor why Stevens was not simply pulled out.

Now, if you want to believe it was all just a mistake, answer my previous question, do you have any confidence in the WH and it's constituants when these types of "mistakes" happen? And if it was all just a mistake, don't you think the WH should be held responsible, along with the Department of State since the Department of State functions under the WH's control?
OK that's an interesting theory. So the WH may have been smuggling illegal military assets from Libya to Syria. Why deliberately leave the embassy defenseless? What purpose did that serve?
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:28 PM   #679
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
This is not the post I am referring to.

But while we're at it, point out the actionable intelligence in this video.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:31 PM   #680
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,115

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
This is not the post I am referring to.
and yet it answers your question about "actionable intelligence" along with things like:

Aug. 27, 2012: The State Department issues a travel warning for Libya citing the threat of assassination and car bombings in Benghazi/Tripoli.

Do you not see the irony here?
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:33 PM   #681
Tombstone RJ
Ring of Famer
 
Tombstone RJ's Avatar
 
Old School

Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In the Tetons!
Posts: 22,115

Adopt-a-Bronco:
WorrellWilliams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
OK that's an interesting theory. So the WH may have been smuggling illegal military assets from Libya to Syria. Why deliberately leave the embassy defenseless? What purpose did that serve?
Nope, not until you answer my questions.

You're just trolling, congrats.
Tombstone RJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:39 PM   #682
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

The White House believes if we just act like everyone is crazy we will be alright.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:39 PM   #683
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
and yet it answers your question about "actionable intelligence" along with things like:

Aug. 27, 2012: The State Department issues a travel warning for Libya citing the threat of assassination and car bombings in Benghazi/Tripoli.

Do you not see the irony here?
When did the CIA cite intelligence that an imminent attack on the Benghazi embassy was being planned by specific persons on a specific date by specific means? I guess if you want to consider a vague warning about "assassination and car bombings" that don't specify targets, times, dates, etc. to be "actionable" then I suppose you can. But generally speaking intelligence is considered "actionable" when those details are available.

By your logic Bush had "actionable intelligence" that the 9/11 attacks were going to occur.
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 12:46 PM   #684
The Lone Bolt
Ring of Famer
 
The Lone Bolt's Avatar
 
GO CHARGERS!!!!

Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Boredom Capital of the Universe (Everett, WA)
Posts: 3,246
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombstone RJ View Post
Nope, not until you answer my questions.

You're just trolling, congrats.
Fair enough.

If it was an error then I have less confidence in the WH. However show me any President that didn't have such foreign policy errors occur on his watch. I would be far more concerned if such security oversights were the norm and nothing was being done to correct them.

Sure I think that whoever was personally responsible should be held to account. What do you think would be appropriate (assuming it was an error)?
The Lone Bolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 01:17 PM   #685
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,210

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Several people died,and you response is,it's OK cause they weren't all Americans.
Sweet. Remove the dead American factor and tell me again what the difference is between Libya and Iraq?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 01:55 PM   #686
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

The difference between Libya and Iraq is that Saddam was much more a threat then Gaddaffi. At the time Gaddaffi was attacked he was cooperating with the USA in many areas. Saddam was still firing missiles, attacking countries, fouling the Earth with his eco-terrorism.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 01:56 PM   #687
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

But as far as what went down Libya it's the same except France led the way. That and Libya wasn't near as powerful as Iraw.

For dems its all about if it's easy or not.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 01:58 PM   #688
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,270

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

I think he's making a dead American point.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 02:05 PM   #689
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,041

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
The difference between Libya and Iraq is that Saddam was much more a threat then Gaddaffi. At the time Gaddaffi was attacked he was cooperating with the USA in many areas. Saddam was still firing missiles, attacking countries, fouling the Earth with his eco-terrorism.
you're freaking delusional. Saddam/Iraq was no more a threat then Cuba. Where's the WMD Cutt?
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 02:12 PM   #690
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
you're freaking delusional.
What did I say that isn't true? It's just more of the liberal plan to call anything they can't explain crazy.

Jay Carney must be your hero.

Gaddaffi was the one who gave up his centrifuges and nuclear ambitions. We then found out his centrifuges were the same design as Irans and made the whole virus that attacked them.

For that he got a rifle stuck up his ass. Obama let Mubarek down as well. What did Obama do? He backed a revolt to overthrow him then watched a terror organization take over using fear to keep people from voting.

Then he decided hell just let a coup overthrow that regime. Basically screwing the notion we back elections. Oh by the way the military rulers of Egypt back on our military tit.

In Iraq we had a leader in Saddam who had no intention of ever playing cooperating again. He tried to kill our President, he shot missiles in a UN no fly zone, he gassed people worst then Assad ever dreamed of, he fouled the earth, he invaded other countries...hell the list goes on and on and on. His sons would have been even scarier.

I disagree with how Bush jr did the security of Iraq after the army fell. But taking out Saddam was the right move.

Gaddaffi did much less and the liberals had no problem bombing the crap out of him. Why? because it was easy and they didn't need troops.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 02:49 PM   #691
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,041

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
What did I say that isn't true? It's just more of the liberal plan to call anything they can't explain crazy.

Jay Carney must be your hero.

Gaddaffi was the one who gave up his centrifuges and nuclear ambitions. We then found out his centrifuges were the same design as Irans and made the whole virus that attacked them.

For that he got a rifle stuck up his ass. Obama let Mubarek down as well. What did Obama do? He backed a revolt to overthrow him then watched a terror organization take over using fear to keep people from voting.

Then he decided hell just let a coup overthrow that regime. Basically screwing the notion we back elections. Oh by the way the military rulers of Egypt back on our military tit.

In Iraq we had a leader in Saddam who had no intention of ever playing cooperating again. He tried to kill our President, he shot missiles in a UN no fly zone, he gassed people worst then Assad ever dreamed of, he fouled the earth, he invaded other countries...hell the list goes on and on and on. His sons would have been even scarier.

I disagree with how Bush jr did the security of Iraq after the army fell. But taking out Saddam was the right move.

Gaddaffi did much less and the liberals had no problem bombing the crap out of him. Why? because it was easy and they didn't need troops.
it was about WMD,Saddam being an a-hole had nothing to do with GWB selling it to the public.

If had to do with just being a bad guy,then he should've invaded N. Korea.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 03:13 PM   #692
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

You can't attack N Korea. That is why Obama is blowing it with Iran. Soon you won't be able to attack them either. Once a country has the bomb all bets are off period.

WMD were one reason Bush gave. But hey he can just pull an Obama and say that was best intell i had at the time right?

Funny how the reasons for removing Saddam have to be WMD or it's wrong. While at the same time you had no problem with Libya. Also you would have went along with Syria as well.

The only difference is Saddam fought back hard and was powerful so it took more then France dropping a few bombs.

Clinton, Bush SR, and maybe even back to Reagan are probably most to blame for N Korea getting the bomb. You have to stop countries on the run up to the first test. Once they test it's too late.

Whatever the country will speak at the midterms on if they feel the liberal revolution is going well.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 03:19 PM   #693
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
you're freaking delusional. Saddam/Iraq was no more a threat then Cuba. Where's the WMD Cutt?
I'll just use the Hilliary out....What does it matter? Our President wanted to take him out and used many things to get it done. WMD was just one reason we gave to attack Saddam.

Meanwhile you're about to get crushed and lose Congress. Looking forward to watching Reid Fillibuster and Obama veto? I know I am.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 03:34 PM   #694
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,041

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I'll just use the Hilliary out....What does it matter? Our President wanted to take him out and used many things to get it done. WMD was just one reason we gave to attack Saddam.

Meanwhile you're about to get crushed and lose Congress. Looking forward to watching Reid Fillibuster and Obama veto? I know I am.
WMD was the sole reason.

I wouldn't count your eggs before they hatch.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 03:51 PM   #695
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 36,851
Default

Why was it ok for regime change in Libya using force even though they had no WMD? Because it was easier?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 04:43 PM   #696
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,270

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
WMD was the sole reason.

I wouldn't count your eggs before they hatch.
You guys are so narrow minded.
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 04:58 PM   #697
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,938
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
In Iraq we had a leader in Saddam who had no intention of ever playing cooperating again. He tried to kill our President, he shot missiles in a UN no fly zone, he gassed people worst then Assad ever dreamed of, he fouled the earth, he invaded other countries...hell the list goes on and on and on. His sons would have been even scarier.
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 04:59 PM   #698
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

WMD is now the reason for Iraq? It used to be for the oil, but now that obviously was idiotic, now we go to this. Not to mention a handful of other countries, including Russia, stated the same thing and most democrats did too before Bush got into the WH. Those facts are too inconvenient though, it sounds better to say Bush lied. But here Obama is caught lying about Benghazi and some video, but no news here folks, better to talk about Christie and traffic.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 06:03 PM   #699
ant1999e
Ring of Famer
 
ant1999e's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BFE
Posts: 6,270

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Money Ball
Default

Is this thread about the Iraq war or Benghazi?
ant1999e is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2014, 06:32 PM   #700
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 9,725

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ant1999e View Post
Is this thread about the Iraq war or Benghazi?
You know when the heat is on, time to pull their usual deflection game.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:57 AM.


Denver Broncos