• 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!

Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war[W:292]

Since you are not American you would most definitely not know what a CHIEF does for his people. Being from generations of monarch. We had a voting system that was accomplished and survived peacefully 350 tribes only a few were pillagers.
 
Despite my hatred of Hillary, I see little hear other than a poor policy decision to try and get involved in the Middle East.

Wtf!!!!!!!!!! In the last century, tell me when the US hasn't been involved in the ME? And negotiating with SA to look the other way while they crushed a citizen protest in Bahrain, not unlike the protests we were supporting over in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria because that one happened to be a threat to SA, so that SA would either support or look the other way while the US abused the resolution for the use of force in Libya to protect the citizens, but instead conduct regime change, is a bit more serious then you suggest. I doubt you'd be giving a republican SoS such a pass.
 
The dems are going to be made to understand that elections have consequences. :cool:

You mean because American voters are predictable enough that every eight years they pass the WH to the opposite party?
 
The GOP is in a stronger place than it has been in perhaps over 100 years, and by the end of Obama's term people are going to be even more tired of the spin and blame than they are today. Beyond that history shows its exceedingly difficult to win 3 consecutive elections.

I expect the GOP primary to be lively, with lots of contenders because the winner will likely be potus. All of this, while Clintons true colors come out.

Yes, most likely Americans will pitch the WH back to the republicans. And eight years latter it will be pitched back to the democrats out of the same desperation. Only maybe will Americans realise that NEITHER party is delivering the goods and form a new, powerful third party and make the ass and the elephant set one out, OMG, how that would get their attention. But its a matter of whether or not Americans stop paying attention just long enough to look up and vote in November, or whether they actually begin to pay attention all along, and start putting America ahead of their party. But I have very small hope in that. If I had to bet America will continue to place a party in the WH only to become disgusted in the end and then put the other party back in, only to become disgusted in the end, and then................in reciprocating fashion.
 
FDR was a democrat as well, and until his economic war, and other provocations, Japan was no threat to us either. I wonder who would pretend that democrats haven't deceived Americans into supporting wars of choice before.

Not to derail the thread, but your non-sequitur on Japan is fiction and ignores Japan's creation of their Sphere of Influence.
 
I think it a wise man who knows when to withdraw from an impossible to defend position.
I think it a fool who tries to maintain and defend an indefensible position.

From what I recall, from all those years back, was that this Marine barracks was not a well defended installation, and could not reasonable be made so. Wise to withdraw in that case I would think.

Of course you're going to defend Reagan on that, just like you've defended Bush's notion that Saddam Hussein could be removed, a puppet government installed, a military trained to defend themselves and leave a shinning example of democracy, right there in the middle of the ME, haha.....hahahaha.
 
The Public is not going to give the Republicans both Houses and the White House. Besides FoxNews will screw it up for the Republicans just like they did in the last two elections.

Wouldn't it be nice if they did though? So that once and for all, the notion might be laid to rest, that single handedly, and without democratic input, the Republican Party would do no better governing the country.
 
Of course you're going to defend Reagan on that, just like you've defended Bush's notion that Saddam Hussein could be removed, a puppet government installed, a military trained to defend themselves and leave a shinning example of democracy, right there in the middle of the ME, haha.....hahahaha.

No, there's no 'of course' in there. I call them as I see them.

Trying to lay the blame solely on Bush for Iraq, ignoring all the votes and support in congress to proceed on that course, is only looking at the 1/2 of the ledger that supports your perspective. Not to worry though. That happens to everyone on occasion. :)
 
Ok.. The country was still destabilized before the US even got involved...


No. I never said that Democrats arent war hawks. I simply said you look at just about every US intervention in the past 20 years and you will see Republicans love it.


:lamo
Nope. From my post you quoted: "I was against Obama bombing Libya in the first place. But this is a clear hack show. On one end you have Republicans to get involved in Ukraine, get involved in Syria, etc. but when it came to Libya (in which many in the GOP vocally supported) they are suddenly against it. What happened? Did the GOP randomly become the anti-hawk, anti-interventionist party? Or were they just the party that is against anything Obama does? I think this clearly shows the hypocrisy and the hack show this has become."

Good reason to destablilize it more ....

I love the rational of the Obama apologists....forgetting that he claims to be making things better....like how Arab Spring was going to bring peace, prosperity and utopia

Every damn thing he fails at you people cite history to make a case that he is at best no better than the worst of George Bush and every president to come before
 
Not to derail the thread, but your non-sequitur on Japan is fiction and ignores Japan's creation of their Sphere of Influence.

So then start a thread and I'll respond to your assertion that Japan's "sphere of influence" was going to approach US real estate.
 
The weakness of this president's response also has a lot to do with making them look like winners. An average of seven airstrikes a day is not going to accomplish much--and this lack of seriousness by President Limpwrist makes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, and Qatar even less willing to stick their necks out. They were only making a few pinprick air attacks here and there to begin with, and even then only against ISIS, and not the Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria that they side with.

Jordan is only doing as much as it is the past few days because of the disclosure of the gruesome murder of its pilot. But its situation is too precarious to allow it to lead the charge for very long. A good part of Jordan's population sympathizes with the jihadists, and the influx of refugees has made it harder for King Abdullah to govern. Worse, thousands of Jordanians have gone into Syria to fight with the jihadists, and some of them are sure to return to operate inside Jordan.

The U.S. cannot lead this fight from behind, and this sorry excuse for a president is endangering our national security by trying. A half-hearted effort that lets these people continue to have a safe haven is asking for another attack on U.S. soil, possibly even worse than 9/11.


Since Obama has come to office I have seen general increase inn the number of posts complaining that America does all the heavy lifting and gets no help in war.

I wonder why?

Let's review Obama's warring. Start with Libya. Bombing runs to aid an abet the enemy of an established power, one of the more stable countries in the region. It was waged we were told then that Arab Spring was the answer to peace and stability in the middle east, he proved it by that assassination that was really a spontaneous demonstration and to help these allegedly pro-democracy Arabs Obama is so wet about. France, Canada, Britain and a few others send fighters, bombers, refueling tankers, men and equipment....at a cost of millions each, we place soldiers lives at risk.

Then there were his victory laps where he used his favorite word even more, "I" as "I saved Libya"........and people in other countries, including mine thought "what a prick"

Now we find out it was Hillary's version of weapons of mass destruction.

Yeah, we're ****ing eager to send our sons into battle for America...eager as ****
 
Last edited:
You mean to say that if I wasn't bitching about it at DP, I wasn't bitching about it! What an argument. As to Hillary, I would never have voted for her, and seriously hope she doesn't even run. I have said on numerous occasions here, no more Clintons and no more Bush's. If Americans put either of them back in the WH, I may have to reconsider the aim of my criticisms.

Im saying theres no way to demonstrate your claims to the forum. All we can do is take you at your word.

Now do you think dems will vote for her despite the fact that she lied to get us into a war?
 
No, there's no 'of course' in there. I call them as I see them.

Trying to lay the blame solely on Bush for Iraq, ignoring all the votes and support in congress to proceed on that course, is only looking at the 1/2 of the ledger that supports your perspective. Not to worry though. That happens to everyone on occasion. :)

Oh, he had near total democratic support for his folly, and he framed his ambition in such tough talking patriotism that those democrats that were uneasy about it were timid to oppose, and some have subsequently said so. Not that that gives them any pass in my book.
 
FDR was a democrat as well, and until his economic war, and other provocations, Japan was no threat to us either. I wonder who would pretend that democrats haven't deceived Americans into supporting wars of choice before.

Our "economic war" against Japan was in response to its invasion of Manchuria. It was absolutely justified.
 
You mean because American voters are predictable enough that every eight years they pass the WH to the opposite party?

No I mean because those same voters just put the most significant republican majority into national govt in what 100 years?
In congress, and in the governorships.
 
Im saying theres no way to demonstrate your claims to the forum. All we can do is take you at your word.

Now do you think dems will vote for her despite the fact that she lied to get us into a war?

Tell me USC, you've seen enough of my posting to understand my position, do you think I wouldn't have been bitching about Obama going into Libya.

As to Hillary, yes, I think they will, as certainly as republicans rewarded Bush's lies on Iraq with a second term.
 
I see, so your arguing that SA can't take care of the Islamic State? I'll argue that they don't want to.

The Sauds are very worried about ISIS in their own country right now. Its a powder keg, being the home of wahabism. They aren't going to throw a match. Frankly Id be surprised if ISIS isn't there in some capacity right now.
 
Yes, most likely Americans will pitch the WH back to the republicans. And eight years latter it will be pitched back to the democrats out of the same desperation. Only maybe will Americans realise that NEITHER party is delivering the goods and form a new, powerful third party and make the ass and the elephant set one out, OMG, how that would get their attention. But its a matter of whether or not Americans stop paying attention just long enough to look up and vote in November, or whether they actually begin to pay attention all along, and start putting America ahead of their party. But I have very small hope in that. If I had to bet America will continue to place a party in the WH only to become disgusted in the end and then put the other party back in, only to become disgusted in the end, and then................in reciprocating fashion.

Although I have no problem with more competitive parties and think perhaps it will make people more politically active, I can understand the view that changing 2 major parties for 5+ smaller parties with similar drawbacks and the inability to win the presidency might be unattractive.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom