Obama has said David Cameron allowed Libya to become a 's*** show'

[finebead]

So France flew more missions than anyone else. What does that really mean to you? That Obama acted responsibly and kept out of it?

Do you really trust Obama despite his list of international screw-ups and will still actually still try to cover for him? Gadaffi's people should have been as loyal.

That fact that France flew more missions than anyone else including the US says they were the a primary player, more than the US. You cannot look at that data and conclude this was Obama's war, it was not. Military control was given to NATO, France flew the most missions.

Knowing that, how do you take that data and conclude this was Obama's war?

 

[Grant]

That fact that France flew more missions than anyone else including the US says they were the a primary player, more than the US. You cannot look at that data and conclude this was Obama's war, it was not. Military control was given to NATO, France flew the most missions.

Knowing that, how do you take that data and conclude this was Obama's war?

It takes a certain kind of person to support Barrack Obama. Someone who, for example, would claim I said this was 'Obama's war' when I said no such thing.

 

[finebead]

It takes a certain kind of person to support Barrack Obama. Someone who, for example, would claim I said this was 'Obama's war' when I said no such thing.

The point of this entire topic is that Obama is bad because HE let Libya devolve into chaos, then had the audacity to suggest that it was David Cameron who did not live up to his commitment.

I maintain that Obama is correct in his criticism of Cameron / England, and Sarkozy of France should share that as well, because they were the leaders in taking out Gaddafi, and I supported that with a report from the Rand Corp. and another post showing France flew most of the air missions, and England was the top spender.

So, if you believe that Obama is not justified in criticizing Cameron, then I think you must believe like others I have posted against, that Obama was the leader in the war, not Cameron. That would be called Obama's war.

Your starting position against me was that the US fired the first shot, and that it would not be surprising for Obama to weasel out by blaming Cameron, and that indicates that you think Obama had the lead, hence my comment "Obama's war".

So, if you think my comment "obama's war" is not a correct conclusion from your post, then clarify it, in relation to the original post of the topic.

 

[Absentglare]

Typical Obama... he farks up (Libya, Iraq, Syria, Shovel Ready Jobs, Economy, releasing terrorists, ObamaKare, race issues...) and it's all news to him... either he doesn't know, heard it from the news... so it's news to him, or it's the fault of someone else.

There is now a 7-year history of incompetence and prevarication on the part of Barack Hussein Obama...

... his presidency can be summed up in one word... Pathetic.

Yeah.... How dare he... Criticize foreign leadership for mismanaging a nearby crisis instead of taking responsibility for every problem in the world like you want him to...

Lol, i wish Obamahaters could hear how ridiculous they sound.

 

[Absentglare]

The point of this entire topic is that Obama is bad because HE let Libya devolve into chaos, then had the audacity to suggest that it was David Cameron who did not live up to his commitment.

I maintain that Obama is correct in his criticism of Cameron / England, and Sarkozy of France should share that as well, because they were the leaders in taking out Gaddafi, and I supported that with a report from the Rand Corp. and another post showing France flew most of the air missions, and England was the top spender.

So, if you believe that Obama is not justified in criticizing Cameron, then I think you must believe like others I have posted against, that Obama was the leader in the war, not Cameron. That would be called Obama's war.

Your starting position against me was that the US fired the first shot, and that it would not be surprising for Obama to weasel out by blaming Cameron, and that indicates that you think Obama had the lead, hence my comment "Obama's war".

So, if you think my comment "obama's war" is not a correct conclusion from your post, then clarify it, in relation to the original post of the topic.

I understand that you want to blame President Obama for Libya, but all of your wishes don't make it true.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Obama's been an effective President. He's done very well as far as keeping the economy going.
But this is just uncalled for.

 

[finebead]

I understand that you want to blame President Obama for Libya, but all of your wishes don't make it true.

Perhaps you should read all of my posts in this topic, I have been defending Obama.

When I said "I maintain that Obama is correct in his criticism of Cameron / England, and Sarkozy of France should share that as well, because they were the leaders in taking out Gaddafi, and I supported that with a report from the Rand Corp. and another post showing France flew most of the air missions, and England was the top spender.", what do you think that means?

 

[Abbazorkzog]

Hussein was a far more "murderous dictator". quadaffi had surrendered and was trying to negotiate his exit but hillary wouldn't have it. We "assisted" what would become part of ISIS....

Right you are.

"We came, we saw, he died." - Chancellor Hillary Adolf Clintler

 

[Absentglare]

Perhaps you should read all of my posts in this topic, I have been defending Obama.

When I said "I maintain that Obama is correct in his criticism of Cameron / England, and Sarkozy of France should share that as well, because they were the leaders in taking out Gaddafi, and I supported that with a report from the Rand Corp. and another post showing France flew most of the air missions, and England was the top spender.", what do you think that means?

You're right- sorry, my mistake.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

RH, I'm pretty sure Hussein was a far more murderous dictator. The hundred thousand kurds he gassed probably gave him an insurmountable lead. The problem was when he gassed them he was our "bestest pal" so we tried to blame Iran for it.

"the Reagan administration first blamed Iran, before acknowledging, under pressure from congressional Democrats, that the culprits were Saddam's own forces. "

https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html

As far as your "Hillary" narrative goes, she was Sec of State. President Obama was in charge. Please post the "editorial" you base it on. And "part of ISIS" is pretty sad. ISIS is a direct result of our invasion of Iraq and leaving an Iranian puppet in charge.

In Their Own Words: Sunnis on Their Treatment in Maliki?s Iraq | The Rise of ISIS | FRONTLINE | PBS

See here's the difference between you and I. I don't disagree with most of what you say. But you seem to turn a blind eye to left wing's wars of choice. You used the justification that qadaffi was a "murderous dictator" as justification to oust him...

I simply pointed out that huessien was worse so by your logic, you would also have to had supported the invasion of Iraq.



I freely admit I supported it when we went in. I come to believe that position was wrong. As I do with libya, and how we are handling ISIS.

 

[Absentglare]

See here's the difference between you and I. I don't disagree with most of what you say. But you seem to turn a blind eye to left wing's wars of choice. You used the justification that qadaffi was a "murderous dictator" as justification to oust him...

I simply pointed out that huessien was worse so by your logic, you would also have to had supported the invasion of Iraq.



I freely admit I supported it when we went in. I come to believe that position was wrong. As I do with libya, and how we are handling ISIS.

That's complete bull****.

Do you not understand the difference between NATO-led bombing and a US-led invasion of Iraq ?

Do you not realize that war crimes in 88-91 don't really justify an invasion in 2003 ?

Do you not understand how Saddam was attacked because of lies ? Do you not realize that Saddam kept Iraqi terrorists in check while Gaddafi endorsed international terrorism ?

Accusing someone else of bias ? Lol...

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

That's complete bull****.

Don't be so mad neocon.

Do you not understand the difference between NATO-led bombing and a US-led invasion of Iraq ?

yes, semantics.

Do you not realize that war crimes in 88-91 don't really justify an invasion in 2003 ?

So he wasn't continuing to be a brutal dictator in 2003 which was YOUR criteria for ousting qadaffi?

Do you not understand how Saddam was attacked because of lies ? Do you not realize that Saddam kept Iraqi terrorists in check while Gaddafi endorsed international terrorism ?

at the time qadaffi was doing no such thing. in fact even the pentagon was trying to slow hillary's war roll...
Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal - Washington Times

Accusing someone else of bias ? Lol...

really, I'm saying these wars of choice were wrong, you are saying "except when the left does it", and I'm the biased one?


Seriously?

 

[Vern]

See here's the difference between you and I. I don't disagree with most of what you say. But you seem to turn a blind eye to left wing's wars of choice. You used the justification that qadaffi was a "murderous dictator" as justification to oust him...

I simply pointed out that huessien was worse so by your logic, you would also have to had supported the invasion of Iraq.

I freely admit I supported it when we went in. I come to believe that position was wrong. As I do with libya, and how we are handling ISIS.

The part you are missing is that we didn’t “oust” gadaffi. We assisted an organized and well funded rebellion overthrow a murderous dictator. That was in my first post in the thread to which you responded to and in my first reply to you which again you responded to. I just get the feeling you "misparaphrased" my posts because you cant respond to what I posted. So to clear, I didn’t justify regime change in Libya. I justified helping an organized and well funded rebellion in libya. Try to respond to what I post not what you wish I posted.

Now I asked you to provide whatever link you got your “Hillary” narrative from.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

The part you are missing is that we didn’t “oust” gadaffi. We assisted an organized and well funded rebellion overthrow a murderous dictator. That was in my first post in the thread to which you responded to and in my first reply to you which again you responded to. I just get the feeling you "misparaphrased" my posts because you cant respond to what I posted. So to clear, I didn’t justify regime change in Libya. I justified helping an organized and well funded rebellion in libya. Try to respond to what I post not what you wish I posted.

Now I asked you to provide whatever link you got your “Hillary” narrative from.

:lol: "we assisted", we provided most of the hardware, and did by far the most heavy lifting.


Whatever your excuse for this war is. the fact remains we allocated a ton of assets to another war of choice.


"hillary narrative"
Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal - Washington Times
Report: Hillary Refused Qaddafi Son's Call for Peace Deal
https://newrepublic.com/article/121...uld-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention
Hillary Clinton: Least Fit of Them All - Reason.com

 

[Absentglare]

Don't be so mad neocon.



yes, semantics.




So he wasn't continuing to be a brutal dictator in 2003 which was YOUR criteria for ousting qadaffi?




at the time qadaffi was doing no such thing. in fact even the pentagon was trying to slow hillary's war roll...
Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal - Washington Times





really, I'm saying these wars of choice were wrong, you are saying "except when the left does it", and I'm the biased one?


Seriously?

No anger on my side, just amusement and honesty.

I find it amusing that you see only a semantic difference between President Bush 2's cowboy contortionism to invade Iraq and support of NATO.

I wasn't making criteria for ousting Gaddafi- maybe you should pay attention to what is written.

I don't recall defending any wars of choice, just criticizing your show of partisanship.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

No anger on my side, just amusement and honesty.

I find it amusing that you see only a semantic difference between President Bush 2's cowboy contortionism to invade Iraq and support of NATO.

I wasn't making criteria for ousting Gaddafi- maybe you should pay attention to what is written.

I don't recall defending any wars of choice, just criticizing your show of partisanship.

Right so you condemn the libyan war and you won't be voting for the war monger hillary should she be the nominee?


We can clear this up right now.

 

[zimmer]

Yeah.... How dare he... Criticize foreign leadership for mismanaging a nearby crisis instead of taking responsibility for every problem in the world like you want him to...

Lol, i wish Obamahaters could hear how ridiculous they sound.

The Ridiculous One... occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

He'll soon be taking his place as worse than Carter shortly... as his Reign of Error will be over.

 

[Grant]

The point of this entire topic is that Obama is bad because HE let Libya devolve into chaos, then had the audacity to suggest that it was David Cameron who did not live up to his commitment. I maintain that Obama is correct in his criticism of Cameron / England, and Sarkozy of France should share that as well, because they were the leaders in taking out Gaddafi, and I supported that with a report from the Rand Corp. and another post showing France flew most of the air missions, and England was the top spender.

They were all in it together, as was NATO.

So, if you believe that Obama is not justified in criticizing Cameron, then I think you must believe like others I have posted against, that Obama was the leader in the war, not Cameron. That would be called Obama's war.

Obama claimed to be leading from behind. Whatever his position he and Hillary were both for getting rid of Qaddafi, a terrible mistake, and one the French and British share.

Your starting position against me was that the US fired the first shot, and that it would not be surprising for Obama to weasel out by blaming Cameron, and that indicates that you think Obama had the lead, hence my comment "Obama's war".

I responded that it was the US who fired the first shot because you were underplaying Obama's involvement. You and Obama were both 'weaseling'. It's customary from Obama.

So, if you think my comment "obama's war" is not a correct conclusion from your post, then clarify it, in relation to the original post of the topic.

I did in this post.

 

[Grant]

:lol: "we assisted", we provided most of the hardware, and did by far the most heavy lifting. Whatever your excuse for this war is. the fact remains we allocated a ton of assets to another war of choice. "hillary narrative"
Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal - Washington Times
Report: Hillary Refused Qaddafi Son's Call for Peace Deal
https://newrepublic.com/article/121...uld-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention
Hillary Clinton: Least Fit of Them All - Reason.com

How can anyone vote for this miserable lying woman? Are they really that .... geez I hate using the word 'stupid'. Report: Hillary Refused Qaddafi Son's Call for Peace Deal

 

[zimmer]

Yeah.... How dare he... Criticize foreign leadership for mismanaging a nearby crisis instead of taking responsibility for every problem in the world like you want him to...

Lol, i wish Obamahaters could hear how ridiculous they sound.

Here is The Great Communicator. Teleprompteur... don't leave home without it!
I believe he was addressing the UN... and claiming... "It wasn't me".
Oooopps... sorry... grade schoolers... Same, same.
(and Demokrats railed against Bush 43's communication skills (facepalm)

 

[Absentglare]

Right so you condemn the libyan war and you won't be voting for the war monger hillary should she be the nominee?


We can clear this up right now.

I'm not sure why you are straining to make this about my personal preferences.

I don't care for wars on the other side of the planet where we experience no direct jeopardy. I would rather defer to a multinational coalition than lie to compel us to a war that we fund entirely on our own.

 

[Absentglare]

Here is The Great Communicator. Teleprompteur... don't leave home without it!
I believe he was addressing the UN... and claiming... "It wasn't me".
Oooopps... sorry... grade schoolers... Same, same.
(and Demokrats railed against Bush 43's communication skills (facepalm)

Fool me twice, you can't fool me again

 

[Vern]

:lol: "we assisted", we provided most of the hardware, and did by far the most heavy lifting.

Whatever your excuse for this war is. the fact remains we allocated a ton of assets to another war of choice.

"hillary narrative"
Hillary Clinton undercut on Libya war by Pentagon and Congress, secret tapes reveal - Washington Times
Report: Hillary Refused Qaddafi Son's Call for Peace Deal
https://newrepublic.com/article/121...uld-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention
Hillary Clinton: Least Fit of Them All - Reason.com

Could you point to the facts in the Washington Times, Briebart, Reason or New Republic editorials you posted. I always question it when someone just posts a link without cutting and pasting the blurb that they think proves their point. And your point was Hillary was making the decisions. I did like this in the New republic editorial.

“There was no solid intelligence to back up Clinton’s statements of the impending bloodbath in Benghazi”https://adadvisor.net/adscores/g.js?sid=9212244187&_kdpid=2111c0af-fc3a-446f-ab07-63aa74fbde8e

Let that sink in. No solid intelligence. Mmmmm, do you see anything wrong with that? anything? Probably not. Don’t worry, gadaffi’s son made the WMD analogy so you don’t have to. And the Washington times was happy to run with it because the right did not support our intervention in Libya. Mmmm, what solid intelligence could there be that a murderous dictator wouldn't punish the population for rebellion. I'm just not sure his son and heir apparent is a good source of intel on the matter. gadaffi made a choice to stay. He chose poorly.

And don't forget Bush Sr told Iraqis to rise up against Saddam after Kuwait, he was especially brutal in putting down the rebellion. Murderous dictators kinda want to prevent future rebellions. Its just what murderous dictators do. And here’s the key that you will again not see, we didn’t need solid intelligence to help an organized and well funded rebellion overthrow a murderous dictator. I realize not supporting murderous dictators is a fundmental policy shift for America but I support it. I really find it hard to question our actions and motives when there was nothing in it for us other than helping an organized and well funded rebellion overthrow a murderous. Cant say that about Iraq.

 

[finebead]

It's not surprising that someone with a lack of character, like Barrack Obama, would try to weasel out of his earlier decisions and cast the blame elsewhere, as in Iraq, but what's astounding is that there are those who will remain loyalists. The first shot was fired by the US.

"A U.S. Predator drone operated from a base near Las Vegas[8] fired the first missiles at the convoy, hitting its target about 3 kilometres (2 mi) west of Sirte. Moments later, French Air Force Rafale fighter jets continued the bombing.[10] The NATO bombing immobilized much of the convoy and killed dozens of loyalist fighters."

Of course it was a tragic mistake getting rid of Gadaffi but this weaseling around the truth really makes it all the more shameful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi

The first shot, of what, and what does it prove?

 

[Grant]

The first shot, of what, and what does it prove?

It proves that the US fired the first shots. Have you been following the debate?