Someone needs to punch this guy in the face.
- Thread starter darthtang aw
- Start date
mantisman51
Active Member
All battlefield deaths are extrajudicial and summary executions. Let's follow this lefty bs to it's logical end. I am a US soldier, the Taliban has fired his weapon at me. I a) send a request to the UN for a tribunal b) give him a summary and extrajudicial execution. The pos doesn't need punched, he needs a free ride to west Pakistan to discuss such issues with those he is losing sleep over.
zman1
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3162921
Yeah and the piece of crap sitting in the oval office will probably agree with the guy.
Isn't the person you are disrespecting and referring to - the one allowing and supporting these attacks. Also, supported them in his campaign.
Perhaps you meant to say the GOP candidate last year was the one that called the drone attacks illegal and is ill advised. How soon we forget.
http:///forum/post/3162921
Yeah and the piece of crap sitting in the oval office will probably agree with the guy.
Isn't the person you are disrespecting and referring to - the one allowing and supporting these attacks. Also, supported them in his campaign.
Perhaps you meant to say the GOP candidate last year was the one that called the drone attacks illegal and is ill advised. How soon we forget.
mantisman51
Active Member
I agree zman. Obama has been right on target with this from the git go. I cannot understand this hatred of Obama by my colleagues on the right. He has not been a flaming lefty. He has been far more conservative than Bill Clinton on defense issues. I don't agree with everything he is doing, but come on, don't fall into the same mind set as the MoveOn crowd and hate everything Obama does because he is a Democrat. If I'm not mistaken(and I know I'm not), we are still prosecuting, legally and militarily, these terrorist scumbags and taking the war to them. BTW, even if it was a publicity stunt, I give Obama a 10+ for being there when our boys were brought home. After living through the disrespect shown our Vietnam veterans, I was almost in tears (at work) when they showed footage of the Commander-In-Chief saluting those boys under the flag. He is showing that, unlike Bill and Hillary, he has true respect for these soldiers. It is symbolism, and the best kind.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3163155
Isn't the person you are disrespecting and referring to - the one allowing and supporting these attacks. Also, supported them in his campaign.
Perhaps you meant to say the GOP candidate last year was the one that called the drone attacks illegal and is ill advised. How soon we forget.
Got link? Don't recall any GOP candidate saying drones are illegal.
Obama is the one who likes to say the US is wrong for everything. Now he doesn't even want to give HIS general the troops to implement the strategy HE approved in April. I guess thats Bushes fault too.
http:///forum/post/3163155
Isn't the person you are disrespecting and referring to - the one allowing and supporting these attacks. Also, supported them in his campaign.
Perhaps you meant to say the GOP candidate last year was the one that called the drone attacks illegal and is ill advised. How soon we forget.
Got link? Don't recall any GOP candidate saying drones are illegal.
Obama is the one who likes to say the US is wrong for everything. Now he doesn't even want to give HIS general the troops to implement the strategy HE approved in April. I guess thats Bushes fault too.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by mantisman51
http:///forum/post/3163924
I agree zman. Obama has been right on target with this from the git go. I cannot understand this hatred of Obama by my colleagues on the right. He has not been a flaming lefty. He has been far more conservative than Bill Clinton on defense issues. I don't agree with everything he is doing, but come on, don't fall into the same mind set as the MoveOn crowd and hate everything Obama does because he is a Democrat. If I'm not mistaken(and I know I'm not), we are still prosecuting, legally and militarily, these terrorist scumbags and taking the war to them. BTW, even if it was a publicity stunt, I give Obama a 10+ for being there when our boys were brought home. After living through the disrespect shown our Vietnam veterans, I was almost in tears (at work) when they showed footage of the Commander-In-Chief saluting those boys under the flag. He is showing that, unlike Bill and Hillary, he has true respect for these soldiers. It is symbolism, and the best kind.
Not a flaming lefty?
Yeah, it;s a middle of the road moderate who appoints members of his cabinet who extol the virtues of Chairman Mao to high school students, tries to socialize health care, sells us out with a cap and trade scheme that is nothing but a global welfare program. Yep, nothing left about Obama.
http:///forum/post/3163924
I agree zman. Obama has been right on target with this from the git go. I cannot understand this hatred of Obama by my colleagues on the right. He has not been a flaming lefty. He has been far more conservative than Bill Clinton on defense issues. I don't agree with everything he is doing, but come on, don't fall into the same mind set as the MoveOn crowd and hate everything Obama does because he is a Democrat. If I'm not mistaken(and I know I'm not), we are still prosecuting, legally and militarily, these terrorist scumbags and taking the war to them. BTW, even if it was a publicity stunt, I give Obama a 10+ for being there when our boys were brought home. After living through the disrespect shown our Vietnam veterans, I was almost in tears (at work) when they showed footage of the Commander-In-Chief saluting those boys under the flag. He is showing that, unlike Bill and Hillary, he has true respect for these soldiers. It is symbolism, and the best kind.
Not a flaming lefty?
Yeah, it;s a middle of the road moderate who appoints members of his cabinet who extol the virtues of Chairman Mao to high school students, tries to socialize health care, sells us out with a cap and trade scheme that is nothing but a global welfare program. Yep, nothing left about Obama.
zman1
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3163977
Got link? Don't recall any GOP candidate saying drones are illegal.
Key on that word - So you don't recall Mccain attacking Obama on foriegn policy including :
“Will the next president have the experience?” he asked. “Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, ....”
Obama - if Musharraf wouldn’t act after receiving actionable intelligence, the US would.
Originally Posted by reefraff
Yeah and the piece of crap sitting in the oval office will probably agree with the guy.
Dang it - dosen't fall inline.....
http:///forum/post/3163977
Got link? Don't recall any GOP candidate saying drones are illegal.
Key on that word - So you don't recall Mccain attacking Obama on foriegn policy including :
“Will the next president have the experience?” he asked. “Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, ....”
Obama - if Musharraf wouldn’t act after receiving actionable intelligence, the US would.
Originally Posted by reefraff
Yeah and the piece of crap sitting in the oval office will probably agree with the guy.
Dang it - dosen't fall inline.....
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3164111
Key on that word - So you don't recall Mccain attacking Obama on foriegn policy including :
“Will the next president have the experience?” he asked. “Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, ....”
Obama - if Musharraf wouldn’t act after receiving actionable intelligence, the US would.
Originally Posted by reefraff
Yeah and the piece of crap sitting in the oval office will probably agree with the guy.
Dang it - dosen't fall inline.....
So then no GOP candidate did say use of predator drones was illegal, didn't think so. McCain did say you can't just start bombing Pakistan. Weren't all you libs panties in a bunch over our attack on Iraq even those they were in direct violation of the cease fire agreement? Now you are cool with just bombing a country?
And the Piece of dog crap sitting in the oval office wont even give the General HE appointed the troops to implement the strategy HE signed on to in April. You really think he would do anything in Pakistan? I guess he is too busy playing golf and attending fundraisers to decide what he want to do.
http:///forum/post/3164111
Key on that word - So you don't recall Mccain attacking Obama on foriegn policy including :
“Will the next president have the experience?” he asked. “Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, ....”
Obama - if Musharraf wouldn’t act after receiving actionable intelligence, the US would.
Originally Posted by reefraff
Yeah and the piece of crap sitting in the oval office will probably agree with the guy.
Dang it - dosen't fall inline.....
So then no GOP candidate did say use of predator drones was illegal, didn't think so. McCain did say you can't just start bombing Pakistan. Weren't all you libs panties in a bunch over our attack on Iraq even those they were in direct violation of the cease fire agreement? Now you are cool with just bombing a country?
And the Piece of dog crap sitting in the oval office wont even give the General HE appointed the troops to implement the strategy HE signed on to in April. You really think he would do anything in Pakistan? I guess he is too busy playing golf and attending fundraisers to decide what he want to do.
zman1
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3164146
1. McCain did say you can't just start bombing Pakistan. Weren't all you libs panties in a bunch over our attack on Iraq even those they were in direct violation of the cease fire agreement? Now you are cool with just bombing a country?
And the Piece of dog crap sitting in the oval office wont even give the General HE appointed the troops to implement the strategy HE signed on to in April. You really think he would do anything in Pakistan? I guess he is too busy playing golf and attending fundraisers to decide what he want to do.
1. Iraq didn't have al qaeda - they followed us there - Pakistan has al qaeda, Why aren't you right wingers supporting him on the drone attacks
.
2. He aready has sent more troops when first came into office, this is a second request. Perhaps it should be reviewed.
http:///forum/post/3164146
1. McCain did say you can't just start bombing Pakistan. Weren't all you libs panties in a bunch over our attack on Iraq even those they were in direct violation of the cease fire agreement? Now you are cool with just bombing a country?
And the Piece of dog crap sitting in the oval office wont even give the General HE appointed the troops to implement the strategy HE signed on to in April. You really think he would do anything in Pakistan? I guess he is too busy playing golf and attending fundraisers to decide what he want to do.
1. Iraq didn't have al qaeda - they followed us there - Pakistan has al qaeda, Why aren't you right wingers supporting him on the drone attacks
2. He aready has sent more troops when first came into office, this is a second request. Perhaps it should be reviewed.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3164291
1. Iraq didn't have al qaeda - they followed us there - Pakistan has al qaeda, Why aren't you right wingers supporting him on the drone attacks
.
2. He aready has sent more troops when first came into office, this is a second request. Perhaps it should be reviewed.
Doesn't matter if Al Quada was in Iraq or not. We had the right to attack them because of their numerous violations of the cease fire from Gulf War I.
2. What ever he sent isn't enough according to HIS General. If you don't like the strategy fire the guy and put someone in place who will implement one you like but enough of this halfassed stuff, do it right or get out. This delay will cost lives, did we learn nothing from the early days of Iraq?
http:///forum/post/3164291
1. Iraq didn't have al qaeda - they followed us there - Pakistan has al qaeda, Why aren't you right wingers supporting him on the drone attacks
2. He aready has sent more troops when first came into office, this is a second request. Perhaps it should be reviewed.
Doesn't matter if Al Quada was in Iraq or not. We had the right to attack them because of their numerous violations of the cease fire from Gulf War I.
2. What ever he sent isn't enough according to HIS General. If you don't like the strategy fire the guy and put someone in place who will implement one you like but enough of this halfassed stuff, do it right or get out. This delay will cost lives, did we learn nothing from the early days of Iraq?
zman1
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3164332
Doesn't matter if Al Quada was in Iraq or not. We had the right to attack them because of their numerous violations of the cease fire from Gulf War I.
2. What ever he sent isn't enough according to HIS General. If you don't like the strategy fire the guy and put someone in place who will implement one you like but enough of this halfassed stuff, do it right or get out. This delay will cost lives, did we learn nothing from the early days of Iraq?
1... How soon I forget we are the World Police - Where is this oulined in the constitution?
2.Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.
Gave more than was asked before.
I will say it agian - Perhaps it should be reviewed -- more closly this time. We have done this now for what eight years without a plan - We might need one now%%
http:///forum/post/3164332
Doesn't matter if Al Quada was in Iraq or not. We had the right to attack them because of their numerous violations of the cease fire from Gulf War I.
2. What ever he sent isn't enough according to HIS General. If you don't like the strategy fire the guy and put someone in place who will implement one you like but enough of this halfassed stuff, do it right or get out. This delay will cost lives, did we learn nothing from the early days of Iraq?
1... How soon I forget we are the World Police - Where is this oulined in the constitution?
2.Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.
Gave more than was asked before.
I will say it agian - Perhaps it should be reviewed -- more closly this time. We have done this now for what eight years without a plan - We might need one now%%
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3164341
1... How soon I forget we are the World Police - Where is this oulined in the constitution?
2.Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.
Gave more than was asked before.
I will say it agian - Perhaps it should be reviewed -- more closly this time. We have done this now for what eight years without a plan - We might need one now
It doesn't matter what he announced then, his boy in the field says he need more to implement the strategy he agreed to in April, after all those troops were approved. Like I said, if you don't believe in the strategy change it, this "lite" plan they are considering is a disaster.
http:///forum/post/3164341
1... How soon I forget we are the World Police - Where is this oulined in the constitution?
2.Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
President Obama announced in March that he would be sending 21,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But in an unannounced move, the White House has also authorized -- and the Pentagon is deploying -- at least 13,000troops beyond that number, according to defense officials.
Gave more than was asked before.
I will say it agian - Perhaps it should be reviewed -- more closly this time. We have done this now for what eight years without a plan - We might need one now
It doesn't matter what he announced then, his boy in the field says he need more to implement the strategy he agreed to in April, after all those troops were approved. Like I said, if you don't believe in the strategy change it, this "lite" plan they are considering is a disaster.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3164366
Perhaps a picture is needed - PS the troops sent were the ones Bush wouldn't send... The gray background is Iraq and red Afghanistan. Where the planning for 9/11 came from...
And again I will ask, So What? His general in charge says he needs 40,000 more troops to complete the mission they agreed to in April. There are now more troop there and suddenly things are going to hell. What does that tell you? There arent enough to do the job.
http:///forum/post/3164366
Perhaps a picture is needed - PS the troops sent were the ones Bush wouldn't send... The gray background is Iraq and red Afghanistan. Where the planning for 9/11 came from...
And again I will ask, So What? His general in charge says he needs 40,000 more troops to complete the mission they agreed to in April. There are now more troop there and suddenly things are going to hell. What does that tell you? There arent enough to do the job.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by zman1
http:///forum/post/3164373
He may send more, he may send less, he may change his strategy, he may change the command. You waited 8 years for what we have now and voiced no outrage -
Afghanistan was going pretty well until recently. As far as I know the general on the ground wasn't asking for more troops there.
http:///forum/post/3164373
He may send more, he may send less, he may change his strategy, he may change the command. You waited 8 years for what we have now and voiced no outrage -
Afghanistan was going pretty well until recently. As far as I know the general on the ground wasn't asking for more troops there.