Page 56 of 75 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 743

Thread: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

  1. #551
    Advisor Iron Yank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    12-21-16 @ 09:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    317

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    They all know that Obama is a pussy. When the leader of The Free World is a pussy, it invites the assholes of the world to start trouble.
    And to think that I'd ever live to see the French leading the way in any military conflict, Oh and Nicolas Sarkozy is the leader of the free world.

    Only under Obama would something like this ever be possible.

  2. #552
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    08-14-12 @ 11:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,928

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by upsideguy View Post
    Nice response, cowboy. Nothing better than a guy who's solution to everything is a bullet. Maybe one day you will be welcome to civilization.
    Whoa, nice unprovoked PERSONAL ATTACK.
    Last edited by dontworrybehappy; 03-22-11 at 08:40 PM.

  3. #553
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,511
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Resolution 1441 explicitly authorized the use of military force...oh wait no it didn't. Way to compare apples and oranges.
    United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 is a United Nations Security Council resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Security Council on November 8, 2002, offering Iraq under Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations"

    United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    I don't know what "a final opportunity" means to you when he lost a war, was supposed to disarm, had shot at our planes daily in the NFZ... and UN Resolutions had been passed previously and we just had a terror attack? Perhaps you, like Clinton believed it was a final opportunity before Saddam would get another Final Opportunity at the UN?

    Let's see? He lost a war, was supposed to cooperate and disarm and didn't. He had a "final opportunity". Hmmmmmmmmmm... now what would they mean by final opportunity when we had amassed troops on the border... ?

    Ahhhh... SNAP! A wet T-shirt contest & BBQ followed by a Hooters Bikini Contest!!! Sorry... wasn't thinking logically.

    CRG: Dr David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

    David Kay
    Testimony before the Senate ASC

    KAY: In my judgment, based on the work that has been done to this point of the Iraq Survey Group, and in fact, that I reported to you in October, Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of Resolution 1441. Resolution 1441 required that Iraq report all of its activities: one last chance to come clean about what it had.

    We have discovered hundreds of cases, based on both documents, physical evidence and the testimony of Iraqis, of activities that were prohibited under the initial U.N. Resolution 687 and that should have been reported under 1441, with Iraqi testimony that not only did they not tell the U.N. about this, they were instructed not to do it and they hid material.

    KAY: Senator Warner, you're absolutely -- I think -- and I think I've said, but let me be absolutely clear about it -- Iraq was in clear and material violation of 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their program. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.

    CLINTON: And of course, my time has expired, but I think that rightly does raise questions that we should be examining about whether or not the U.N. inspection process pursuant to 1441 might not also have worked without the loss of life that we have confronted both among our own young men and women, as well as Iraqis.

    KAY: Well, Senator Clinton, let me just add to that.

    We have had a number of Iraqis who have come forward and said, "We did not tell the U.N. about what we were hiding, nor would we have told the U.N. because we would run the risk of our own" -- I think we have learned things that no U.N. inspector would have ever learned given the terror regime of Saddam and the tremendous personal consequences that scientists had to run by speaking the truth.

    CORNYN: And indeed, the deception that you've talked about of Saddam's own military and scientists and others who perhaps led him to believe that they were following through on his orders to develop these weapons of mass destruction, would you say that that deception not only convinced perhaps Saddam to some extent, but indeed that contributed to his intransigence before the world community and defiance of the United Nations and, finally, of U.N. Resolution 1441?

    KAY: I think that probably did. I'm just hesitant because analyzing the mind of someone who would end up in a spider hole like Saddam requires a skill that I suspect I was not equipped for. But, yes, I think that's a reasonable interpretation.
    Last edited by zimmer; 03-22-11 at 08:48 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  4. #554
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    I don't know what "a final opportunity" means to you when he lost a war, was supposed to disarm, had shot at our planes daily in the NFZ... and UN Resolutions had been passed previously and we just had a terror attack? Perhaps you, like Clinton believed it was a final opportunity before Saddam would get another Final Opportunity at the UN?

    Let's see? He lost a war, was supposed to cooperate and disarm and didn't. He had a "final opportunity". Hmmmmmmmmmm... now what would they mean by final opportunity when we had amassed troops on the border... ?

    Ahhhh... SNAP! A wet T-short contest! Sorry... wasn't thinking logically.
    From the same wiki article:

    On November 8, 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15-0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.
    While some politicians have argued that the resolution could authorize war under certain circumstances, the representatives in the meeting were clear that this was not the case. The ambassador for the United States, John Negroponte, said:
    “ [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. The resolution makes clear that any Iraqi failure to comply is unacceptable and that Iraq must be disarmed. And, one way or another, Iraq will be disarmed. If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of further Iraqi violations, this resolution does not constrain any Member State from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq or to enforce relevant United Nations resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2] ”
    The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
    “ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3] ”
    The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
    “ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #555
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,511
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    From the same wiki article:
    Sorry. Wiki-slant. Final Warning was part of the resolution. The other is obviously opinion.

    As I stated... "final warning" or what? The troops on the border will come over and rub your belly? We gave him a last chance through the corrupt UN. He chose not to take it. We, and our coalition decided to remove his ass. We didn't need no stinking UN to give a "super-duper Final Final with cream and a cherry on top" resolution.

    What is it that people fail to understand about the word "final"?

    Bush43 had the votes of Congress... twice from the Senate. That is all that counted in the end.(plus the UN)

    King Hussein Obama has the corrupt UN, but nothing from Congress.

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 03-22-11 at 09:23 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  6. #556
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Sorry. Wiki-slant. Final Warning was part of the resolution. The other is obviously opinion.

    As I stated... "final warning" or what? The troops on the border will come over and rub your belly? We gave him a last chance through the corrupt UN. He chose not to take it. We, and our coalition decided to remove his ass. We didn't need no stinking UN to give a "super-duper Final Final with cream and a cherry on top" resolution.

    What is it that people fail to understand about the word "final"?

    Bush4 had the votes of Congress... twice from the Senate. That is all that counted in the end.(plus the UN)

    King Hussein Obama has the corrupt UN, but nothing from Congress.

    .



    .
    Sorry, but a "final warning" is not the same as the explicit authorization for the use of force. That was made pretty damn clear. As far as I'm concerned, Congress should have voted on and issued an official declaration of war in the case of both Iraq and Libya.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-22-11 at 09:28 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  7. #557
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    in invading Iraq we couldn't get any but a few of our strongest allies on board, talk about "Coalition of the Willing."
    The degree of consensus regarding a particular military involvement goes a hell of a long way in telling you how legitimate your cause is.
    Fact: Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya

  8. #558
    Educating the Ignorant
    zimmer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:31 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    14,511
    Blog Entries
    12

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Sorry, but a "final warning" is not the same as the explicit authorization for the use of force. That was made pretty damn clear.
    Bush43 got authorization where it counts... from Congress.

    He had the "Final Solution" UN Resolution for Saddam too, but it seems some folks failed to understand the word "final" after 16 previous resolutions. The same people also failed to understand who The Decider is. I think they understood a little better after Bush43 illustrated what he meant with the word "final". But, some still fail to understand.

    Sum peeple yu j'us kaint reech.

    Wiseone: Another for the record books.

    .
    Last edited by zimmer; 03-22-11 at 09:32 PM.
    The Clintons are what happens...
    when you have NO MORAL COMPASS.

  9. #559
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!

    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,832
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Moderator's Warning:
    U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in LibyaCease with the personal attacks - final warning.
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  10. #560
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

    Again...apples and oranges. The nations that have a token number of ground troops that they could potentially dedicate to a ground op far exceeds the number of nations willing and able to contribute parts of their air forces for such an endeavor as enforcing a no-fly zone. None of this takes away from the fact that intervention in Libya enjoys a much wider consensus and support compared to support for an invasion of Iraq.

    Again, personally I am not for US involvement in either case. But distinctions need to be pointed out. Still, nobody has told me why Congress hasn't voted on a declaration of war.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 03-22-11 at 09:40 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 56 of 75 FirstFirst ... 646545556575866 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •