• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Hit Targets in Libya

Just making a point. Are you going to live by a double standard, too, or just make personal attacks?

I never called Bush a murderer, and have said that calling him such is stupid. Once again, I am consistent on the issue and don't have to blame others for my antics.
 
A defiant Moammar Gadhafi vowed a "long war" after the U.S. and European militaries blasted his forces with airstrikes and over 100 cruise missiles, hitting air defenses and at least two major air bases early Sunday, shaking the Libyan capital with explosions and anti-aircraft fire.

http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110320/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

Cue the well-worn chorus: "Oh noes! It is going to be a QUAGMIRE! Teh new Viet-NAM!!" :scared:

:lamo
 
Ignoring the hyper partisan masturbation party here.

Does this action of helping the protestors remind anyone of the time we helped the Taliban fight Russia?

I don't recall it, because it never happened.
 
But do you support having the US rush into Bahrain to fight off Saudi Sunni troops who have come in to support the Sunni government against the protestors?

Really don't understand how we pick and choose where to send our money.
Perhaps we are in Libya due to Gaddafi being a more well known infamous celeb.

This may be more about hating Gaddafi than really having any love for the protestors who months ago probably celebrated the Lockerbie bomber's release from prison.

Speaking of Saudi Arabia, they had been calling for intervention in Libya to stop the genocide and at the same time they are supporting with troops the murder of shia protesters in Bahrain.
 
Liberal Democrats in uproar over Libya action - John Bresnahan and Jonathan Allen - POLITICO.com

the pusher of impeachment, for your information, is the only member of congress KNOWN to own a tinfoil hat

Kucinich: I saw a UFO – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

party on, peeps

Holy ****! I love this.

On the one hand, you have Bush get congressional approval, but failed to get UN resolution for force, and the libs can't stand it.

On the other hand, Obama gets UN approval but doesn't ask congress, and the libs are furious.

Both are moral and legal. Bush has congressional approval and doesn't need a UN resolution. Obama gets the UN but no congress. The War Powers Act supports Obama's actions. Congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 completely bypasses the provisions in the War Powers Act regarding executive privilege.
 
I never called Bush a murderer, and have said that calling him such is stupid. Once again, I am consistent on the issue and don't have to blame others for my antics.

Good for you. That's great. My sarcasm must not apply to you, eh?
 
we supplied the mujahideen with weapons but we never helped them fight the Russians.

We supplied weapons and training to the elements of the Mujahadeen that became the Northern Alliance. We never helped/created/or whatever other term you wanna use, the Taliban.
 
Kinda like when de Gaul kicked the U.S. out of France? Or, when France wouldn't let U.S. bombers fly through French airspace to bomb Qadaffi? :lamo

How ironic is that?

Not even close to how ironic it is to see a nationalist giving a country crap for being nationalistic.
 
Wait, I thought the Arab League was all about this.



The dumb **** has already started and it's only been a day.

Everyone knows they are notorious for speaking out of both sides of thier mouth.
 
We supplied weapons and training to the elements of the Mujahadeen that became the Northern Alliance. We never helped/created/or whatever other term you wanna use, the Taliban.

The Taliban did not exist during that time period of course, niether did the Northern Alliance. But as the majority of the Mujahadeen were pashtun, and the Pashtun's make up theTaliban, it would be a safe bet to say that US aid went to the Pashtun Mujahadeen, and as such flowed to the Taliban when they were created as a group. When the Northern Alliance was formed as an official group, fighting against the Taliban they received their primary support from Russia and Iran.
 
Good for you. That's great. My sarcasm must not apply to you, eh?

My lack of sarcasm did apply to you however. I do get to point out when people are using that kind of over the top stupidity to try (and fail) to make a point.
 
The Taliban did not exist during that time period of course, niether did the Northern Alliance. But as the majority of the Mujahadeen were pashtun, and the Pashtun's make up theTaliban, it would be a safe bet to say that US aid went to the Pashtun Mujahadeen, and as such flowed to the Taliban when they were created as a group. When the Northern Alliance was formed as an official group, fighting against the Taliban they received their primary support from Russia and Iran.

*sigh*--We chose to send all the money, training and weapons to the forces commanded by Shah Massoud. Those were forces eventually became known as The Northern Alliance and were commanded by, you guessed it, Shah Massoud. At no time did we fund the twisted bastards that came to makeup the Taliban. Let's not much up this thread with revisionist history, anymore than we have to, please. Thanks!
 
My lack of sarcasm did apply to you however. I do get to point out when people are using that kind of over the top stupidity to try (and fail) to make a point.

Good for you. You wanna discuss the topic, or just call me stupid?
 
I will take dishonest, irrelevant comparisons for 1000, Alex.

Cool, 'cuz it is a large category and saw a lot of use in this thread early on. :)
 
*sigh*--We chose to send all the money, training and weapons to the forces commanded by Shah Massoud. Those were forces eventually became known as The Northern Alliance and were commanded by, you guessed it, Shah Massoud. At no time did we fund the twisted bastards that came to makeup the Taliban. Let's not much up this thread with revisionist history, anymore than we have to, please. Thanks!
according to this you are wrong
The United States provided Massoud with close to no support. Part of the reason was that it permitted its funding and arms distribution to be administered by Pakistan, which favored rival mujahideen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. In an interview Massoud expressed: "We thought the CIA knew everything. But they didn't. They supported some bad people [meaning Hekmatyar]." Primary advocates for supporting Massoud instead were State Department's Edmund McWilliams and Peter Tomsen, who were on the ground in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Others included two Heritage Foundation foreign policy analysts, Michael Johns and James A. Phillips, both of whom championed Massoud as the Afghan resistance leader most worthy of U.S. support under the Reagan Doctrine.[20][21]

Still, the Soviet army and the Afghan communist army were mainly defeated by Massoud and his mujahideen in numerous small engagements between 1984 and 1988. In 1989, after labeling the Soviet Union's military engagement in Afghanistan "a bleeding wound", Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev began a withdrawal of Soviet troops from the nation. On February 15, 1989, in what was depicted as an improbable victory for the mujahideen, the last Soviet soldier left the nation.

Ahmad Shah Massoud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I never condemned him for doing nothing. If you can find the post where I did, I would love to see it. Thanks in advance.



ditto, I also did not condemn Obama for not doing something sooner.

Reading Comprehension FAIL

I said

I find it interesting how people on these boards were condemning Obama for doing nothing and now that he is doing something, are condemning him.

Ya just can't keep a moral consistency can you?

"These boards" does not mean this topic, rather the forum as a whole.
 
I wonder how many Libyan's that thought they where defending the soveriengty of their country from mercs will find themselves on some Terrorist list and targetable for death/capture.
 
Back
Top Bottom