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 06-28-2014, 11:12 AM   #751
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16,627
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
He probably should have left Mubarak in power, but go ahead and let Gaddaffi fall. Then with Syria he should have never talked tough if he wasn't willing to send in air power at the very least.
Egypt is in complete shambles. Women are getting raped and drug through Tahir Square. Libya isn't much different than Egypt. Now Obama's giving money to the Syrian rebels, while sending troops to fight against them in Iraq?

Obama is a Sociopath.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 11:34 AM   #752
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
Got to see Lady Gaga

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 63,601

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Shaq Barrett
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pricejj View Post
Egypt is in complete shambles. Women are getting raped and drug through Tahir Square. Libya isn't much different than Egypt. Now Obama's giving money to the Syrian rebels, while sending troops to fight against them in Iraq?

Obama is a Sociopath.
How on Earth can any conscientious, reasonable, intelligent person possibly blame Obama for what is going on in Egypt, Libya or Syria?

Oh, that's right. They don't.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 11:37 AM   #753
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16,627
Default

1. Obama funded and supported the muslim brotherhood and 'arab spring' in Egypt.
2. Obama has funded and supported the Syrian rebels, and continues to do so.
3. With NATO backing, Obama also funded and supported the coup in Libya.

So yes, Obama has had a direct hand in ALL of those conflicts, and is DIRECTLY responsible for the consequences of his actions.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 11:59 AM   #754
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archer81 View Post
Not so crazy. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan in 1979. They ultimately lost because of American arms and money given to crazy rebels...of course 20 some odd years later we had the worst terrorist attack on the American homeland in our history.

ISIS makes Al Qaeda look like girl scouts in comparison. They captured one of Saddam's "sealed" chemical weapons plants. They control large chunks of Syria and Iraq. They are slaughtering Iraqi citizens and leaving the bodies for anyone to see. I doubt strongly worded comments and inspiring hashtags are gonna cut it this time.

You appear unaware that Pres Carter's national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski is on record bragging -- taking credit for luring the Soviets into the Afghanistan trap.

The ISIS offensive apparently has the US blessing --- and in this we are no doubt helping both sides kill one another, just as we did in WW II, and in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

This is a morally reprehensible foreign policy. Why are Americans not condemning it? MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 12:01 PM   #755
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 13,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
How on Earth can any conscientious, reasonable, intelligent person possibly blame Obama for what is going on in Egypt, Libya or Syria?

Oh, that's right. They don't.
Ro likes to sleep through history unfolding.

White House requests $500 million to aid Syrian rebels

http://rt.com/usa/168720-obama-syrian-rebel-fund/
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 12:07 PM   #756
SoCalBronco
Nixonite
 
SoCalBronco's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Arcadia, CA
Posts: 42,238

Adopt-a-Bronco:
D.J. Williams
Default

Don't assist the ****ing rebels. I'll go with Assad over Islamists any day.
__________________
1991, 1992, 2009, 2016 Stanley Cup Champions. It's a Hockey Night in Pittsburgh!

SoCalBronco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 12:50 PM   #757
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 24,503
Default

gaffe with the Lenin/Stalin/Putin adoration again.

Why don't you move to Родина, ya America-hating Jew-hating ****head?
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 12:56 PM   #758
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16,627
Default

Deny, Deflect, and Blame. The mantra of Obama and his supporters.


It's George Orwell's '1984' only 30 years later.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 12:58 PM   #759
BroncoBeavis
Ring of Famer
 
BroncoBeavis's Avatar
 
Smells Dirty

Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 12,898

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
If Clinton WOULD have done it, why didn't he, Einstein?
BroncoBeavis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 01:00 PM   #760
barryr
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 12,325

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Obama wants all the credit, but never the blame. Just as a spoiled child would act.
barryr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 01:19 PM   #761
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: 3,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Amazing to watch Right Wing bubble-think in action. The neocons were planning to invade Iraq as soon as they got into power. They first mentioned their plan back in '93. They wrote a paper on it, how they would meddle in the ME, create a democracy in one of the ME countries they invaded, they would be greeted as liberators, and the new democracy, wherever it was, would stabilize the ME. They chose Iraq (a former ally) and used 911 as the catalyst to launch the invasion knowing full well that Saddam had nothing to do with it. They lied and manipulated the media to make it happen. They outed a CIA agent to make it happen.

And what is the Right Wing bubble-think? Clinton would have done the same thing.

It's like a ****ing fantasy world.

According to Wikipedia, PNAC was formed in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...erican_Century

And of course Saddam had nothing to do with 911. That was never a justification for the invasion. Nobody in the bush admin was saying that. Bush did suggest links to al-Qaeda (a foolish oversell for the invasion IMO) but even he never said Saddam was directly involved in the 911 attacks AFAIK.

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 06-28-2014 at 01:25 PM..
The Lone Bolt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 01:56 PM   #762
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
Got to see Lady Gaga

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 63,601

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Shaq Barrett
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
According to Wikipedia, PNAC was formed in 1997.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...erican_Century

And of course Saddam had nothing to do with 911. That was never a justification for the invasion. Nobody in the bush admin was saying that. Bush did suggest links to al-Qaeda (a foolish oversell for the invasion IMO) but even he never said Saddam was directly involved in the 911 attacks AFAIK.
The Wolfowitz Doctrine paper was written in 1992 and rewritten by Cheney and Rumsfeld in 1993. It became the Bush Doctrine. Look up "Wolfowitz PDF" if you'd like to read it.

If you truly believe that the Bush administration didn't link 911 with Saddam in the minds of the American people, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. The year after the invasion there was a poll showing that 70% of the American people believed in that connection. Where do you think they got that idea? If you'd like, I can post the videos of Cheney linking Atta and Al Queda to Saddam.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 02:22 PM   #763
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

I remember it being many reasons talked about.

1-WMD
2-Invading other countries
3-paying terrorists to attack Israel
4-firing at jets in the no fly zone

then the real reasons

1-enemy of the USA and someone not to be trusted into the future
2-tried to plan the killing of a former US President that was the new Presidents dad.

Great job by Bush JR getting a tough job done that both Clinton and his dad failed to get done.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 02:29 PM   #764
pricejj
jungle
 
pricejj's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16,627
Default

I never supported going to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, because I don't believe the US has any national interests in the region. However, the Obama supporters want to have it both ways. They support Obama's war in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet deride Bush.

Tell me, why are US troops fighting in Iraq now, hypocrites? You support war in Iraq or you don't. Obviously, Obama thinks the US has a national interest in the region too, or else he wouldn't be getting involved again.
pricejj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 02:38 PM   #765
TonyR
Franchise Poster
 
TonyR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mid-Atlantic
Posts: 23,972
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Great job by Bush JR getting a tough job done...
You're crediting "Bush JR" and not the 4,000 US soldiers who died?
TonyR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 02:54 PM   #766
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

Hell no without a kick ass military no President could handle business. That goes without saying. Even now the military still does a great job, it's not their fault Obama let it all go to crap.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 02:57 PM   #767
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

If soldiers preferred dems to repubs they would vote dem. Stats show that not to be the case. Explain liberals?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 02:59 PM   #768
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 37,267
Default

The two army rangers I know both say they love being deployed into war zones. They love to make more money, get more medals, get more promotions etc.

Apparently they say you don't get medals or promoted as much sitting around waiting for some p***Y like Obama to let you do your job.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 05:33 PM   #769
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: 3,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
The Wolfowitz Doctrine paper was written in 1992 and rewritten by Cheney and Rumsfeld in 1993. It became the Bush Doctrine. Look up "Wolfowitz PDF" if you'd like to read it.
My bad. You said "the neocons" not PNAC specifically.

Quote:
If you truly believe that the Bush administration didn't link 911 with Saddam in the minds of the American people, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. The year after the invasion there was a poll showing that 70% of the American people believed in that connection. Where do you think they got that idea?
That they believed an unspecified "connection" between Saddam and 911 is a vague statement. Show me that those polled believed that Saddam was directly involved in the 911 attacks.

Quote:
If you'd like, I can post the videos of Cheney linking Atta and Al Queda to Saddam.
I'm aware of that. But as I said, nobody in the bush admin stated that Saddam was directly involved in the 911 attacks. Anybody who thought so is an idiot.

If you can find a video with bush or anybody in his admin stating that Saddam was directly involved in the 911 attacks and that was the primary reason for invading please post it.

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 06-28-2014 at 05:41 PM..
The Lone Bolt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 06:20 PM   #770
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: 3,642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rohirrim View Post
Amazing to watch Right Wing bubble-think in action. The neocons were planning to invade Iraq as soon as they got into power. They first mentioned their plan back in '93. They wrote a paper on it, how they would meddle in the ME, create a democracy in one of the ME countries they invaded, they would be greeted as liberators, and the new democracy, wherever it was, would stabilize the ME. They chose Iraq (a former ally) and used 911 as the catalyst to launch the invasion knowing full well that Saddam had nothing to do with it. They lied and manipulated the media to make it happen. They outed a CIA agent to make it happen.

And what is the Right Wing bubble-think? Clinton would have done the same thing.

It's like a ****ing fantasy world.
Is this the document you're referring to?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...a71yeE2ByxUqZg

I read through it. I didn't see any mention of a plan to attack Iraq, or plans for the United States to "meddle in the ME, create a democracy in one of the ME countries they invaded... be greeted as liberators, and the new democracy, wherever it was, would stabilize the ME."

If I missed it please point out the page(s) it's on.

Last edited by The Lone Bolt; 06-28-2014 at 07:19 PM..
The Lone Bolt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2014, 10:22 PM   #771
bombay
Ring of Famer
 
bombay's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: denver
Posts: 8,514
Default

http://english.irib.ir/news/world/mi...trol-of-tikrit

Iraqi army retakes Tikrit.
bombay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 03:04 AM   #772
gyldenlove
Ring of Famer
 
gyldenlove's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nęstved, DK
Posts: 11,882

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Spencer Larsen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
My bad. You said "the neocons" not PNAC specifically.



That they believed an unspecified "connection" between Saddam and 911 is a vague statement. Show me that those polled believed that Saddam was directly involved in the 911 attacks.



I'm aware of that. But as I said, nobody in the bush admin stated that Saddam was directly involved in the 911 attacks. Anybody who thought so is an idiot.

If you can find a video with bush or anybody in his admin stating that Saddam was directly involved in the 911 attacks and that was the primary reason for invading please post it.
The Iraq resolution in 2002 that funded and gave GWB the go ahead for war states directly:

Quote:
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
This was a resolution passed trough both congress and the senate that states directly that Iraq was harboring Al Qaeda terrorrists, that it was funding terrorrists and that because of 9-11 Iraq was a target. We are talking the entire legislative branchs (263 republicans in both chambers voted for this resolution, only 9 abstained or voted against it) so I would say the republican party under GWB was pretty clear on a connection between 9-11 and Iraq.
gyldenlove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 03:25 AM   #773
gyldenlove
Ring of Famer
 
gyldenlove's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nęstved, DK
Posts: 11,882

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Spencer Larsen
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
I remember it being many reasons talked about.

1-WMD
2-Invading other countries
3-paying terrorists to attack Israel
4-firing at jets in the no fly zone

then the real reasons

1-enemy of the USA and someone not to be trusted into the future
2-tried to plan the killing of a former US President that was the new Presidents dad.

Great job by Bush JR getting a tough job done that both Clinton and his dad failed to get done.
Lets see now:

1. WMDs, Iraq didn't have any.
2. Prior to the Iraq war which country had last invaded another country? Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, US invaded Afghanistan in 2001.
3. This has never been proved (however since then the US has paid terrorrists to attack Syria, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan)
4. I full scale invasion costing thousands of american lives and 10s of thousands wounded was definitely in order because they shot at a few planes.

Those excuses look REALLY flimsy.

Oh yeah, an enemy of the US: good thing the US didn't arm him or send him weapons or military advisors or anything else that would you do with a military ally.

If the best reason for a full scale invasion was a 10 yeard old plan to kill an ex-president, that says more about the mental state of the government that sent so many thousands to their deaths and spend trillions of dollars on a war that was doomed from the start than any amount of mockery can ever portray.
gyldenlove is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 05:41 AM   #774
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 
Got to see Lady Gaga

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 63,601

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Shaq Barrett
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Bolt View Post
Is this the document you're referring to?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...a71yeE2ByxUqZg

I read through it. I didn't see any mention of a plan to attack Iraq, or plans for the United States to "meddle in the ME, create a democracy in one of the ME countries they invaded... be greeted as liberators, and the new democracy, wherever it was, would stabilize the ME."

If I missed it please point out the page(s) it's on.
Sorry. I've played this "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" argument with you before. Not going there again. The general theme of the document lays out an argument for unilateral intervention as the leadership sees fit in any region deemed of "...critical national interest" or where there "may" be a threat in the future. The first statement was broad, as in "U.S. leadership is a prerequisite for effective international action." (Read that again and let that soak in. Pure Cheney.) The first outline of the Wolfowitz Doctrine was necessarily broad, to take in the whole world. Ensuing documents outlined how that Doctrine would apply to Iraq specifically as it moved into the neocon crosshairs as the test case for the Doctrine prior to Bush taking office. The string of rationalizing intervention held constant throughout, from Wolfowitz through to the Bush Doctrines.

The point of the original argument is that Clinton had nothing to do with it. This was hatched in the Right Wing think tanks of the neocons. Beavis' argument that Clinton "Would have done the same thing" is ludicrous.

Here's the post-Iraq world of the Right: We tricked you into believing us so that we could invade Iraq, and now we assign you culpability for falling for the tricks. Nice bit of logic there.

Last edited by Rohirrim; 06-29-2014 at 05:50 AM..
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2014, 06:30 AM   #775
bombay
Ring of Famer
 
bombay's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: denver
Posts: 8,514
Default

bombay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:27 PM.


Denver Broncos